Kissinger has always supported Saudi Arabia. Wouldn't they be considered a "a Taliban-type government or a fundamentalist radical state?"

Which of course begs the question of who started this fight. If I recall correctly, the Islamists started this one back in the 1970's and Hussein opened this particular theater in 1990.

Sorry, we didn't start this mess, a bunch of guys with long beards and turbans did. Take out your ire on them.

If one looks very closely at what Kissinger is saying, beyond the spin and nuance, the hard facts in support of the present course of action remain. The inescapable conclusion is that we maust not cut and run from this one, that we have to put the coonskin on the wall.

I disagree that this war is not about geo-politics. The insurgents are being trained and funded by the governments in Syria and Iran. They have geo-political interests in keeping a US friendly democratic government from succeeding in Iraq. Kissinger is painting the Taliban style outcome in Iraq as the radical outcome that will upset the region, but it is the US style democratic outcome that will be more radical and will affect the region the most. The Middle East is used to the Taliban option, they lived with it in Afghanistan for a decade without problem.

The parallel to Vietnam is that this time we are the revolutionary element, and the Syrians and Iranians are playing the US role of defending the status quo.

Iraq is not a battle against radical Islam, it has turned into one because we have rendered our soldiers vulnerable to attack.
Misrepresentation of the Middle East and Islam should only be expected from a man who presided over the genocide of 2 million innocent Vietnamese.
This war, just like Vietnam every other war, is about money, imperialism, profits, strategy. War is a racket.
The United States helped bring Saddam Hussein to power, they helped bring the Taliban to power, they have supported the oppressive Wahhabi's in Saudi Arabia, and the sadistic government in Israel. The CIA overthrew the peaceful genius Mohammed Mossadeq in Iran, installed the Shah, and we are now living the reationary results.
Oil is the most valuable resource in the world right now, and it is only going to become more so as we start to run out. If we are going to slaughter innocent people to support our wasteful machine of a society, we should at least be honest and open about it, and not slander the Muslims. A little over 200 years ago we were fighting a battle against foreign control, and now that the tables are turned it is evident that people need to learn a lot more about history and current geopolitics. Wake up and do some research, idiots.

Wake up and do some research, idiots.

Thus proving that liberals can be very funny indeed, coming as it did after a screed filled with historical inaccuracies and bizarre conspiracy theories.

BTW, the world is now FURTHER AWAY from running out of oil than it was in 1859.

As anonymous proves to us that yes, Saddam Hussein was a US ally, what with all those T-64 tanks, MiG fighters, BTR armored personel carriers...
Oh wait. We never made those.

The war in Iraq is less about geopolitics than a clash of ideologies, cultures, religious beliefs.
Because of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper significance than Vietnam. If a Taliban-type government or a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Baghdad or any part of Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces in Islamic countries or Muslim minorities in non-Islamic states would be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and internal stability of all societies within reach of militant Islam would be imperiled.
This is why many opponents of the decision to start the war agree with the proposition that a catastrophic outcome would have grave global consequences...

A surprisingly dense misreading of the current situation.

This certainly addresses the obvious, current tactical struggle, but the meta-conflict is over whether Arabs can reform their broken societies, or whether the U.S. will lose patience and crush them.

Mr. Kissinger writes as though America's future actions were somehow still constrained by the late Soviet Union; senility, perhaps ?

Thanks for the link Michael and for the history lesson.

Agreeing about Kissinger is one of the pleasures of socializing with conservatives. Thanks for reminding me why I do this.

...the reason being people who actually have an ideology, as opposed to "centrists," or "realists," have beliefs and passions and ideals, and are the only people worth arguing with.

Rick:

Amen. We can all agree that the purveyors of detente were traitors.

Rick/Orrin:

Which, more than anything, is what separates you from the rest of the modern world.

I've always been struck at how many people across the political spectrum loathe Kissinger. I remember a poster on Lucianne.com saying she wouldn't trust him to take out her garbage, much less run America's foreign policy.

I think it's a realistic assessment of the current situation and supportive of staying until it's finished ... which may mean when civil war breaks out. Hopefully by then the Shia and Kurds will be in control of the majority of ordinance currently distributed throughout Iraq, thanks to France, China, Russia and an assortment of middle Euros; now our friends?

Unfortunately Michael, our future actions will be constrained.

And to the tiresome anon; have you forgotten about the international cartels, the bankers and the rest of the litany? Get yourself down to Crawford and insist that GWB tell you personally ... WHY, WHY, WHY. Why not!