On the very same day that Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post, “In many ways, we are witnessing one of the most promising periods in Russian history,” the Russian Foreign Ministry promised “to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods,” to the construction of an American-Czech missile shield. I don’t think this is what Dr. Kissinger had in mind.
But then, I’m not sure what he did have in mind. Kissinger had just returned from the 12th Annual Investors Conference in Moscow, and something strange happens at these global meet-and-greets. It’s as if Western attendees discuss everything but the enormous problems staring them in the face and then come back to rave about what good dinner companions they found in various autocrats. After schmoozing over endless courses of almond oil foam, President Bush came away from his G8 discussion with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev assuring Americans that the Putin flunky is “very comfortable, he’s confident, and . . . I believe that when he tells me something, he means it.” (This in light of the new military threat is a little worrisome). Kissinger came back from Moscow and wrote of the Putin-Medvedev twosome, “The government’s operation — at least initially — with two centers of power may, in retrospect, appear to be the beginning of an evolution toward a form of checks and balances.” And his strongest evidence for this rosy interpretation? Putin had not yet changed the constitution to extend his presidency indefinitely.
There is something else at work in all this cuddly talk among conservative foreign policy figures. With a few exceptions, they’ve lost their stomach for confrontation. After Iraq, policymakers of all stripes are less inclined to countenance muscular geopolitical postures. Bush has apologized for his cowboy rhetoric, given North Korea a free pass, and gone mum on Iran. Zimbabwe will pass into its next chapter of slaughter and mayhem without earning anything more than a few sanctions. And on and on. It’s as if hard-line foreign policy luminaries have begun to believe the election year characterizations of them as single-minded hawks bent on endless war. But as John Bolton wrote in the Wall Street Journal
The real debate is radically different. On one side are those who believe that negotiations should be used to resolve international disputes 99% of the time. That is where I am, and where I think Mr. McCain is. On the other side are those like Mr. Obama, who apparently want to use negotiations 100% of the time. It is the 100%-ers who suffer from an obsession that is naïve and dangerous.
The U.S. is currently bending over backwards to find common ground with nations that continue to threaten American interests and the interests of other free nations. This is as it should be. But let’s not get into the habit of flattering dangerous actors and let’s not forget about that reserve 1%.