The Dispatches On War: Part X

#30 by ferozk

[…the old German wrestles with his demons and cannot quite admit that he lost his soul a long time ago.]

Feroz K, that wretched commodity referred to as “soul” has no legitimate place in the scheme of things generally – even far less so in the scheme of realpolitik.

I must disagree with your characterization regarding the “twilight” of American power. In fact, during the Kissinger-Nixon stint, we lived in a bipolar world where the reds were very much in competition with the US. Today’s world holds far fewer challenges to US power. The “balance of power” that you refer to was not of the K’s making – it was an existing reality and perhaps more accurately called a “balance of fear”, of mutual annihilation.

Realism has NEVER left US foreign policy completely, however, a certain sense of idealism (I would not call it ideology) has perhaps lately (temporarily) gotten hold of it – and having a hard time letting go so as to come down to earth. But the system is self-correcting – there was a reason to have those checks and balances, after all! :)

The anecdotes regarding the K “grading” policy potions are quite amusing – but you know how these “professor-types” operate! :)

You may be a wee bit mistaken in singing “Glory Days” for the K. Do not write him off just yet – the fat lady can wait a bit longer. He has been looming in the background even of the GWB presidency. Perhaps he even made himself some money. :)

Old man K has done quite well for himself – especially considering where most of his contemporaries now are. :)

BTW, thanks for stoking my interest in history over the past two years – a subject I had never paid much attention to before.

re: bjkumar

Thank you for the kind words, but I am afraid those words are misplaced on one such as myself. :)

You were correct in assuming that I harbor a fascination for Henry Kissinger. I am a child of Nixonian foreign policy having come of age in a time, when the Nixon-Kissinger duo was making and influencing the affairs of the world. My fascination for Kissinger stems from his flawed nature in the sense that some times, it seems that if the old German wrestles with his demons and cannot quite admit that he lost his soul a long time ago. Kissinger is very much alive and occassionally, I still catch a glimpse of him on TV voicing his believes in a status quo that does not exist. Kissinger came to power at the twilight of American power, when the sun had already set but its shadows still lingered and it was in those lenghtening shadows that Kissinger plyed his reincarinated dreams of a nineteenth century balance of power.

Kissinger is one of those sad reminders of Bruce Springteen`s song ``Glory Days`` and he still believes that he is the star quarterback of the American foreign policy team and on his plays, the national foreign policy will stand vindicated and triumpant.

I miss the old man because he is a reminder of a time, when the United States` foreign policy was based on realism and not ideology. I still remember the words of my old college professor of American military history and American national security studies, who once remarked that Kissinger used to grade his staff`s policy recommendation papers as if he was grading students at Harvard; with As, Bs, Cs, Ds and Fs. The As and the Bs would make the cut and would be given as choices to Nixon and the world would turn a different way based on Nixon`s final choice. Given the ideological nature of the United States` foreign policy, I miss the realism of amoralism that used to characterize the American foreign policy from the support of Pinochet to Marcos to Pakistan to Iran.

Ideology makes for a poor subsitute for realism because as Cardinal Richelieu said once, politics has nothing to do with morality because in the real world of politics, morality only compounds the problem. Winston Churchill was anti-communist to the core and when Hitler invaded Russia, and Churchill was told of the invasion, he immediately cabled Stalin for an alliance against Hitler. When a friend reminded him of his past tirades against Stalin, Churchill replied if Hitler were to invade hell, the least he could do was make a favorable reference to the devil!

It is hard to resist the nostalgia of youth and of youth`s once cherished believes. :)

Ciao

re: Kamath # 25

Kamath, the ancient Romans had a saying called ``quo vadis``, a Latin phrase/question that asked ``where do we go from here?``

History is a journey of self-discovery and history is the attempt to learn about our present by understanding the past so that we may be able to fathom the reasons that will influence and shape our futures. The study of history is not about facts and dates, but is the psychology of human behaviour; human greed, lust and flaws and weakness. History, in my opinion, is not a collection of stories about great men or women doing great and noble things, but it is a reflection of their flaws and their weakness and history is a story that mirrors a Greek tragedy. History is a documented list of human weakness and the inability of great historic personages to resist their human prejudices and to fall prey to the expediencies of their emotion.

Every journey has a destination and an embarkation point and sometimes, the destination is not half as important as the manner of the travel or how we reach the final destination. At the start of every journey, we have to remember the point from where we started out and why we are sojourning the travails of a particular journey. You are absolutely right to ask the question about studying dead white men; my students have the same question. The ancient Greeks said the the past is the epilogue and those who forget it; not only do they forget from where they started out but in many ways, they are not sure where they are headed because they have no compass of a past experience to guide them to nearest horizon, and when the horizon turns out to be a mere mirage; they sullenly ask ``quo vadis``. In such cases, they have no future and they have no past and as a nation or peoples, they drift upon the sands of time without a purpose.

We study the story of dead white men and for that matter, history, to answer the question: quo vadis. History to me and why I study it is the reaffirmation of my past; a guide that tells me that despite the uncertainities of the contempory world, human nature has not changed. History, atleast to me, is not the sum of dates but is a catalyst of humanity and all its dreams because the people of the past also had their shares of dreams and failures and hopes and disappointments and in their unique ways, sought to create a more better world for themselves and their prosterity. History is the inspiration of the Aristotlean dictum that to sin is human, but to strive is divine and when we study the past, we hope to a capture a divinity within ourselves and maybe glimpse a better hope for the future.

Kamath, the most basic and enduring defination of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result and the historic past and its study offers us a way out of limitations of our self-imposed insanity. We study dead white men in the hopes that we may, still, be able to break out of the mayhem of insanity that we routinely create for ourselves by ignoring the lessons of the past and to remind ourselves not to make the same mistakes that our forefathers made and that in all honestly, the sins of the father shall not be visited upon the son if can learn the right lessons. The fact that we habitually fail in our efforts, does not mean that we should give up the fight to make a more beneign world, because study of history, in the words of the Greeks, means ``to go out and tame the savage nature of man and make gentle the life of the world``.

Why we study the past? The answer to that question lies with you and you will have to answer it for yourself.

What is the point of studying dead people?

What is the point of getting back on the bicycle after falling down or loving again after experiencing a doomed love affair? What is the point of excellence without understanding the measurement of excellence itself? What is the point of a life without pain or joy that does not make us feel alive and what is the significance of a dawn without the benefit of a long dark night?

I cannot answer your question; only you can answer the question of ``what is the point?``, but before answering this question, I hope you will be able to answer the question ``quo vadis``.

Ciao

#27 Kamath

[BJK is a politician by trade.]

Sir, what have I done to deserve such intense umbrage that you direct the cruelest of epithets, the choicest of the lot, my way! I am shattered, dear sir - in more ways than any words could ever capture!

You sir, suddenly loom larger than life - perhaps a twenty first century reincarnation of the Metternich and the Machiavelli combined. (I would have been happy to include Mr. Kissinger because of the clear fascination that the Feroz appears to hold him in, but it is my understanding that the K is still alive.) In any case, somebody should grab you and put you on a full-blown trial for inflicting cruel and unusual punishment to fellow humans. In fact, had I not been a bit pressed for time, I would have attempted to do that myself.

Re: # 25:

Senor Che:

Loosen up a little bit Amigo. Let us not get stomach ulcers here by being too serious. BJK is a politician by trade. He can talk a lot and convey little. So have your glass of wine ready, drink and be merry. and don`t worry about BJKumar! May be you could sing ``old lang syne``.

Kamath

Re: # 24

Well done, well done BJKumar! Well done indeed !

Kamath

Re: # 24
holy shit man you really like to talk

#23 by kamath on March 2, 2007 6:00am PT

[Should one really read this Dead Old White`s European history?]

Sir, I will disregard the obviously rhetorical nature of your enquiry – which is acting as a thinly veiled sheen for a half-hearted and clumsy inveigling attempt to invoke the wrath of this author/philosopher who – against all provocations, continues to maintain the composure of the Bamian Buddhas (hopefully avoiding the same end results)! In that mode, he will stubbornly refuse to rise to your provocations and retort in a proportionate manner – therefore other individuals (like this one), who make no claims to scholarship or depth, must fulfill that sacred duty!

In our present times, the blessings of the internet have proved to be a curse in disguise for traditional historians – for many are the pedagogical casualties that now litter the main streets of academia, one could safely state that a man cannot even walk those streets without stepping over emaciated corpses done to a dreary death – for there is no dearth of data any more, historical or otherwise. Many a preaching pundits are no more considered scholarly and have been virtually pulverized prior to their prime through this onslaught of the data – butchered through the bites of the bytes! For the internet is endless in capacity, it is undying in duration, and it is merciless in maintaining data and facts – much more than the mind of the human historian could ever hope to be!

So instead, what you see in the accounts from the present august company of the Feroz – is not so much the facts, the years, the data tidbits and all those superficial details of history which the internet has made so readily assessable to every man, woman, and child as well as any other specimen of humanity who fails (or declines) to fit those classifications. You do not necessarily see a strict chronology. You do not see the soap opera theater trivias and you most certainly do not see high praise for the high and mighty!

No, my dear sir, those are not the strengths of the pieces we encounter here – whose inherent beauty, from at least the superficial appearance of your attacks, you have failed to appreciate!

Sir, those dry facts have a physical basis, the never-seen-by-anybody-alive years actually happened, and those “dead white men” as you call them so callously – were living, breathing, feeling individuals once upon a time – not so different from the living, breathing, feeling brown-complexioned individuals lurking these premises – they were people for whom we already have the complete stories – unlike their brown-complexioned counterparts for whom the story is still being written.

And in those stories that have been completed lie lessons for those countless stories that are being written right now and many more stories that are yet to be written!

What one witnesses here in the series is the larger picture – the commonality of the un-commonest of men, the repetition of the timeless cycles, the permanence of the transient – all of which is essentially stuff whose essence no internet database could ever capture and code and store forever. For such capture and such coding and such storage is meaningless – and the meanings of those long-ago events explained to laymen in context of the present-day can not be captured through any digitizing device!

It can only be understood.

Or not!

Between the machine and the Man is interposed this man – the Feroz – who fulfills that role. As only man can! Like high-quality artwork, this beauty can only be perceived through the eyes of discriminating men (and women) that can see the larger picture and that can see the otherwise elusive, indefinable pattern – and those patterns can only be understood through thoughts that pervade our human minds. For such thought is what distinguishes us from the machine below us and such thought is what gives us our daily connection to the One above us.

And without it, we are nothing!

Holy Moses:

Should one really read this Dead Old White`s European history?
Kamath

find a publisher in quick time feroz!

#18 FerozK

Absolutely fascinating!

BTW, I recommend not dispensing ``free copies`` of your book - even to those who claim to be your friends.

Sir, NEVER mix business with pleasure!

Re: # 16

swarrier:

You really think hamidm2 cannot solve one billion equations in a minute! I bet you he can solve for the zeroes of one billion polynomials in 1/2 a minute. Get real .......

On the other hand zee and urstruly can reduce this set of equations to one and leisurely solve it over morning chai. For, in their world `value` is what it should be as ordained by the divine BOOK.

Its time to run for cover ...... :)

Re: mantolives # 15

It will be a long wait. :)

I am fine as much as fine can be... ;)

Ciao

Re: bjkumar # 6


Yes, Kissenger was fascinated with Metternich and nineteenth century European power politics. Kissenger despite his admiration for Metternich and the balance of power, was more atuned to the Realpolitik of Bismarack. One glaring omission of Kissengerian politics from those of Metternich`s was that Metternich had a political principle in mind; the traditional stabilizing influence of European monarchies in European politics. Towards that end, he created the post-1815 European balance of power and why he objected to Greek independence.

Kissenger did not seem to have principle guiding his political machinations but his over-arching principle seems to have been that of a political opportunist, and while he was eager to constrain the Soviet Union within a status quo, he was also willing to maintain the United States` power/influence via isolating Soviet Union through a series of alliances and the maintance of surrogate client states. Incidently, Pakistan was a minor concern to the Americans because the main American client state was Iran and it was only after the loss of Iran in 1979 that the Americans started to pay attention to Pakistan as possible leverage for their own foreign policy aims. Kissenger`s tilt towards Pakistan in 1971 was motivated more by an angst of an increased Soviet influence in South Asia and not because Pakistan was a Cold War ally of the United States. Kissenger`s shifting political alliances, such as the volte-face from Taiwan to mainland China, was Bismarckian in its intent.

Metternichian system, had Kissenger followed it, would have suggested an alliance system that remained constant, because changing alliances and entering into new political agreements ``du jour`` would have led to political uncertainities. Metternich would not favored the dismissal of Taiwan for China because he would have feared the creation of a political precedent whereby other nations might have entered into what might be called as opportunistic politics. The most notable example of Metternichian political balance of power was in the example of George Bush, Sr.`s handing of the Iraq crisis in the 1990s; the creation of an international coalition to maintain the international status quo. The present Bush administration is Kissengerian and the only diffference is that this administration has replaced the Kissengerian fixation with a Cold War status quo with an ideological status quo.

Parentically speaking, this might be an explantion why the ``old guard`` of the Republican party seems to be complaining about the present administration`s foreign policy. The old guard of the Republican party, as suggested in the Baker-Hamilton Report, favored a political rapprochement with Iran and Syria, but it was rejected by the Bush administration. The reason being that the GOP is divided on its pursuit of a foreign policy, but are helped by the inability of the Democrats to define their own foreign policy vis-a-vis the GOP. Factually speaking, the first Bush administration created a status quo following a Metternichian approach that the second Bush Administration destroyed following a Kissengerian-Bismarckian diplomacy that was more unilateralist with the specific aim of increaing United States` ability to influence international affairs and not necessarily to preserve the status quo in international affairs.

If you should read Bismarck, you will realize that he was better role model for Kissenger, but however, Kissenger`s protege, Brezinski (sp) was Metternichian in his policy directions.

Ciao

The most interesting aspect of this period’s European history for me is its impact on the fortunes of the Ottoman Turks. Greece to attain its independence from Turkey employed a very interesting maneuver. The Greek rebels to get British support bid for a British prince as their King. They called upon Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, the widower of the heiress to the British throne, Prince Charlotte, but it was not to be Leopold opted to become King of Belgium instead, another new creation.

Unlike Muslim lands where the King represented the essence of the people unless he had attained the title through conquest. The King’s loyalty was to himself, his family and his country and that is where he drew his legitimacy, through force of arm and the ability to control territory. That was not the case in Europe, to be the ruler, the king and have legitimate authority over the people you needed to be of royal blood. Which meant that king of one country married the princess of another and before you knew it all the royal families of the various countries ended up being the same family. That did not usher in an era of peace and tranquility, countries continued to fight each other based upon their interests, but for the people what it did do was to make the loyalty of the prince or the king suspect. A king who hardly knew the language let alone the traditions of his adopted land how could he be trusted to look out for its interests. To complicate matters further, this was an era of absolute monarchy. There was only one republic in the world (that being USA) and only one constitutional monarchy (Britain) rest of Europe was ruled by Kings who believed in the divine right of Kings.

Great Powers were busy manipulating little ones, knew countries were being created and their crowns hawked out and when they ran out of princes they gave it ‘gentlemen’ even those with out title. In the end, nearly the whole of Europe was ruled by a single royal family, mostly made from the Austrian Habsbergs.

Re: # 10
GT
He`d give his gardener an hour`s worth of management consultation in that context. -)

Re: #12
Feroz looking forward to the rest. Especially the next one and XIV and XVII. A long time ago I read Von Mannstein`s ``Lost Victories`` and I have some memories of it.