Provocative Nonsense

13 Responses to “Provocative Nonsense”

1. D.C. Dude on December 5th, 2009 9:00 pm

   With all due respect, doesn’t romulgate means declare support for? It doesn’t mean initiate or invent or to be the first to articulate something.

   Shacthman says Kraemer provided Henry Kissinger and Al Haig “with an antipodal, absolutist, ideologically pure anti-Communist pole to the pragmatism of Richard M. Nixon during his administration.” I didn’t see him say it was the only influence on either.

   I view Shacthman’s posting in the context of his new book with Len Colodny. Is it surprising that he writes a post that focuses on what appears to be one of the characters in the book? Not to me, it isn’t. In a blog essay where awareness of word counts limits content, I’m not surprised he didn’t cite earlier comments, although yours are useful for historical context. He’s focused on his new book, no surprise there.

   Cheney’s a hoot. Except when it comes to the political angle. Man, oh man, the GOP doesn’t need more of the type of damage he and his crowd inflicted. As one conservzative blogger put it this week, credit card bellicosity has run its course. George W. Bush has shown a lot better sense and a lot more class than Cheney since leaving office. Even James Fallows at The Atlantic noted as much (“In Praise of George Bush”) at
   http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/in_praise_of_george_w_bush.php

   RN had few options in Vietnam. There wasn’t the political will to escalate beyond what the U.S. had done, leaving “Vietnamization” and drawdowns as the only realistic options. A view Mel Laird strongly shared, of course.

   JFK played the Cuban Missile Crisis just about right. Going with a naval blockade (“quarantine”) was the right move. Bobby Kennedy reportedly was really angry as the crisis broke but cooled down. JFK hung tough on a realistic approach; Gen. LeMay and his crowd didn’t win out. Air strikes would have been the wrong thing to do. Coolness and deliberation in a President isn’t always a bad thing. Good thing Kraemerism didn’t prevail in ‘62. Projection of strength matters and is appropriate at times, but so does commen sense.

   And above all, situational awareness matters and nimbleness matter much more than rigid templates.

2. DAVE in UT on December 6th, 2009 2:23 am

   Thanks for the surprising referral to James Fallows’ piece on G. W. Bush.

   So far, I’ve been able to find only one authoritative set of memoirs from that Administration – from retired USAF General Richard B. Myers, then Chairman – Joint Chiefs of Staff at 9/11/2001 – titled “Eyes on the Horizon: Serving on the Front Lines of National Security” (Simon & Schulster, 2009).

   [My positive review of that book is on 'The Author's Page' @ the web site for 'AMAZON.com' - then author & title].

   * * * * *

   On RN’s options for Vietnam – in fact: All of South-East Asia, including Laos & Cambodia = My paper can be found among the Henry A. Kissinger [HAK] Papers collection in The Library of Congress @ Washington, DC is titled “On Maintaining the Asian Containment Line: The Indochina Experience” (dated January 10, 1969).

   HAK received a copy @ Harvard University. Later, a letter of sincere appreciative acknowledgement – on White House stationery – was dated January 20, 1969 – the First Inaugural.

   During the presidential campaign, RN spoke of “having a secret plan” to end the war. Some archivists still suggest that may have been either (a) misleading – or – (b) under-stated. I prefer the latter for this reason:

   RN’s plan to end the war was not so secret – since he had previously written eloquently in an article titled “Asia After Vietnam’ in the “Foreign Affairs Quarterly” [1967].

   Astoundingly, in some of HAK’s writings after leaving public office – He admits to NOT HAVING READ that article, before entering The White House Staff as RN’s national security adviser.

   RN “encouraged” HAK to do so – and quickly! And rightfully so, IMO!

3. DAVE in UT on December 6th, 2009 2:30 am

   On “shapers and movers” behind HAK – I have come to appreciate over time the Stephen Graubard intellectual history. He knew HAK well.

   THAT VOLUME – by Graubard – IS still worth re-reading now!

4. D.C. Dude on December 6th, 2009 5:25 am

   Thanks, Dave in UT.

   If it wasn’t clear, what I meant was “Projection of strength matters and is appropriate at times, but so does common sense. And above all, situational awareness and nimbleness matter much more than rigid templates.”

   Here’s a review of the Colodny-Shachtman book:

   http://tinyurl.com/ygkpx8s

5. DAVE in UT on December 6th, 2009 12:16 pm

   “DUDE” – The cited review just made the convincing case to purchase that book next.

   Thank you once more – this time for the link to that specific book review.

   One question = Although “seemingly present at the formation” of the ‘Neo-Cons’ – I had the impression that over time former “Commentary Magazine” editor (now emeritus there – to his son John), NORMAN PODHORETZ drifted away from the Neos.

   Was that a correct perception?

6. DAVE in UT on December 6th, 2009 12:54 pm

   POST-SCRIPT for “The DC DUDE” = There is a Santa Barbara, CA-based blog called “NOOZHAWK.com”.

   How about taking a look at the following: (a) The basic articles; as well as (b) some posted comments to these two recent commentaries, and then (c) add your perspectives here ‘TNN’, please?

   (1)The ‘NOOZHAWK.com’ EDITION of Dec 4th = “JIM HIGHTOWER: Take a Stand Against Obama’s War”.

   2) The ‘NOOZHAWK.com’ EDITION of Dec 3rd = “JOE CONASON: The Crushing Legacy of Bush & Cheney”.

7. Jack Pitney on December 6th, 2009 5:57 pm

   Thanks for the comments. I appreciate the spirited conversation. A few quick reactions.

   1. Yes, I agree with you: it is obvious that Schactman wrote this article to promote his new book. There is nothing wrong with promotion per se, but I stand by my criticism of the piece.
   2. According to Merriam Webster, “promulgate” means “to make (as a doctrine) known by open declaration.” Clearly, Shachtman meant to give credit to Kraemer: otherwise, there would have been no point to discussing him at such length in the first place. But as I said, it makes so sense to say that Kraemer pronounced or conceptualized an idea that had been in common use for centuries.
   3. He refers to Kraemer as “the discoverer and shaper of Henry Kissinger, and the mentor of Alexander Haig.” By using the definite article “the” instead of the indefinite article “a,” he is assigning Kraemer the primary role in their development.
   4. Nixon’s “Asia after Vietnam” article was indeed a major episode. Nixon, however, did not say that he had a “secret plan” to end the Vietnam War. I addressed that urban legend in an earlier post: http://thenewnixon.org/2008/06/25/two-1968-myths-in-one/

8. DAVE in UT on December 7th, 2009 6:41 am

   JACK =

   Thanks for YOUR clarification and citing the mis-perception[s] ADN erroneous mrpess quotes (a.k.a. “mythologies”) re: RN being quoted on the preidential campaign trail as “[NOT] having a ’secret plan’ to end the VN / SEA War[s]“; reference: Your item (4) comment and link above.

   DAMN – but there is some really great stuff on this blog!

   Giving crendence to the old adage = “ALL OF US are smarter, than any ONE of us”! -30-

9. D.C. Dude on December 7th, 2009 2:58 pm

   Thanks for the response. The item on the Colodny-Shachtman book in the Litchfield County Times to which I referred says that Kraemer “discovered a young Henry Kissinger at a time when Mr. Kissinger’s goal in life was to become an accountant. He helped to guide the young man toward Harvard and his future in politics.” It also states that Kraemer “was a seminal influence on Henry Kissinger, who later moved out of his sphere, and on Haig, who did not. The shift in Kissinger’s allegiance left the two men at daggers’ points while serving together in the White House, according to the authors, and created a 30-year rift between Kraemer and Mr. Kissinger.”

   This suggests to me that he played a mentor role to a young Kissinger, who later evolved in his thinking. That’s not so different from what you said in your blog post. You’re right that Mr. Shachtman could have made that clearer in the Huffington Post piece. But I tend to look at this as one of those instances where an author hits some points in one essay and covers some of the same ground somewhat differently in another. I’ve done that myself in some of my writing.

   I’m especially interested in seeing how Colodny and Shachtman handle the areas where Kraemerism and neo-conservatism hit up against public opinion and politics from the 1960s onwards. Cheney famously said while in power that he paid no attention to polls. But polls are similar to the 360 feedback executives get in corporations or developers get while testing products for the mass market. Polls don’t have to be feared or waved off. Quite the contrary, they provide early warning signs of weakness, dissonance, stress or distress. A political party can reach a tipping point where key parts of the electorate lose confidence in it. That happened to the GOP during the Bush administration. (Wasn’t the first time in history won’t be the last.) Public opinion is no small thing in a republic where the people decide at the ballot box who should get the keys to the White House.

   As you know, opinion polls show the American people becoming more isolationist. What would Kraemer’s reaction be, one wonders?

10. Tom Shachtman on December 11th, 2009 4:07 pm

    These are all good and interesting comments, and I hope you all will follow up and read our book THE FORTY YEARS WAR, as it has quite a bit more detail about Kraemer and his influence, among a great many other subjects. Mr. Pitney is correct, of course, that an understanding of the provocative nature of weakness predates Fritz’s formulation of the idea, but he popularized it in modern times, and especially into the ears of such as Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz. As for he or the neocons being affected by public opinion, Kraemer was a determined elitist with a disdain for the bourgeoisie; the neocons, too, thought they were right, and that anyone who disagreed with them didn’t understand the situation.

11. DAVE PHILLLIPS in SParks, NV on January 12th, 2011 6:16 am

    ONE LAST COMMENT = As a footnote to this long-ago albeit ’spirited and lively’ exchange from 2009!

    A long-treasured book by US Marine Corps “gunny sergeant” and keeper of The White House ‘PERKS’ = JACK GULLEY – ‘with Mary Anne Reese’ – from Simon and Schuster publishers; titled “BREAKING COVER …” [copyright = circa. 1980].

    This is a treasured ‘insider account’ over five presidential adminis= trations – ending with the Jimmy Carter tenure.

12. DAVE PHILLLIPS in SParks, NV on January 12th, 2011 6:31 am

    Near-real time “CORRECTIONS of NAMES” = BILL GULLEY and MARY ELLEN REESE – See ‘Amazon.com’ web site with author and title.

13. DAVE PHILLLIPS in SParks, NV on January 12th, 2011 8:30 am

    IN SOME RECENT READINGS in “Chronicles” periodical by The Rockford Institute, I have recently come across some reviews of Cold War histories and exchanges of letters – between George Frost Kennan and JOHN LUKACS! *** The latter = A NAME with which I, frankly, am not now familiar – nor have I heard the scholar mentioned heretofore. *** DOES ANY ONE know of or even anything about him? *** PERHAPS, you Professor JACK PITNEY @ the Claremont McKenna College’s governmental program of studies “On the edge of Civilization” in East Los Angeles County?

Got something to say?