KISSINGER LINKAGE AND FOREIGN POLICY CHAOS

The late Henry Kissinger was a giant of his era.  He stood shoulder to shoulder with the other great men and women from the time period, whether friend or foe, hero or villain, whether Mao or Brezhnev, Sadat or Golda Meir or his boss Richard Nixon, Kissinger was there.  From his days at Harvard, he not only had a profound impact on the study of history and international diplomacy but he also had a great influence on the application of these ideas in the formulation of policy and the pursuit of the national interest during his tenure as National Security Advisor during the Nixon Administration.  One of the most intriguing concepts elucidated by Kissinger was that of linkage.  In office, Kissinger applied this idea to the now defunct USSR, the other great powers and the international environment as a whole.  Kissinger explained that a functioning US policy in one region of the world will impact relations and allow for progress and gains to American interests in other parts of the globe, meaning the intricacies and outcomes of policy are interdependent throughout the world.  While Kissinger referred to the positives of linkage, the inverse is also a reality and can be applied to the contemporary period.  When looking at US policy since 2021, it must appear to an outside observer to be a comedy of errors in which one policy turns into a debacle with the reverberations felt throughout the globe.  As a starting point, one can look at the US withdrawal from Afghanistan as the genesis of this chain reaction of events.  After 9-11 till 2021, the US was actively engaged in that Central Asian nation against its archenemy, a supporter of terrorism, the Taliban.  But the Biden Administration decided this saga, the  commitment to Afghanistan had been completed and the pro West government was competent enough to withstand any attack by the Taliban.  Such a premise would prove to be at the minimum, faulty, at the maximum the withdrawal was an unmitigated disaster and a national calamity.  Almost from the beginning, an Afghan Army in full retreat, American citizens and allies rushed to the Kabul Airport seeking a frenzied way out of the country.  Simultaneously, the Taliban launched brazen terrorist attacks against US troops while its forces were converging on the capital with scattered resistance.   In the end, with little effort, the Taliban regained political control, conquering Kabul, (the capital) confiscating $85 billion of US military equipment and aid and reopening Afghanistan to the benefit of US adversaries.  American officials shrugged off the loss of this huge quantity of equipment by suggesting the Taliban had no such ability to operate this cornucopia of sophisticated hardware.  Within days Taliban fighters were being videotaped flying attack helicopters and exhibiting a capability to utilize this looted materiel.  Such a display of American weakness and incompetence was certainly noticed by Vladimir Putin who saw the opportunity for an opening.  In the US, upon taking office, the Biden Administration had increased regulations on domestic oil production, brought an end to the Keystone Pipeline and announced to the world the US was moving beyond fossil fuels as a source of energy.  With these actions, the price of fuel increased and Vladimir Putin’s position had been strengthened with enhanced revenues from his domestic oil industry flowing into his coffers.  It is not coincidental that prior to his moves into Georgia (2008) and Crimea (2014) the price of a barrel of oil had risen.  To add insult to injury, the Biden Administration did not send a firm message of opposition to Russia warning that aggression would not be tolerated. With this inaction, Putin invaded Ukraine in search of what he believed would be an easy campaign. As Putin entered Ukraine, observers in Iran believed they too had an opening.  The Democratic presidents of Obama and Biden had previously sent huge amounts of cash to Iran in the hope of normalizing relations and winning the peace.  Iran had received a different message, one of US weakness and acquiescence to acts of terrorism.  The Iranians used this massive infusion of cash to assist its clients in Gaza and in Lebanon and let’s not forget the Houthis in Yemen.  Then on 10-7, Hamas launched its terrorist attack into Israel proper, murdering Israelis in a ghastly manner, wreaking havoc on the Jewish state and sending shock waves throughout the region. The Biden Administration, though initially supporting Israel, found its party, the Democrat Party, divided between those supporting a ceasefire and those which advocated Israel’s need to defend itself.  Biden’s attempt to appease both sides found such a position wanting.  As his domestic poll numbers sank, Biden turned to shoring up his reelection bid rather than supporting his ally’s position and US support of Israel began to wane. Seeing US indecisiveness, the Iranians continued to ramp up the pressure by supporting Houthi drone and missile attacks throughout the region, including at important shipping lanes.  The feckless US response to attacks by a fifth rate power must have left adversaries believing further attacks could yield fruit and allow for US weakness to perpetuate. In Beijing, one wonders what is going through the mind of Xi Jinping? As he looks over regional and global maps does he too see an opportunity?  Note to the US administration, please review Mr. Kissinger.