European Tribune - Comments - Dr Kissinger Calls
there are vital Western interests in the region and we have to fight.
What vital interests does Afghanistan hold for the West?
But he also went in for some casuistry about why it had to be done in Afghanistan and not, for example, Saudi Arabia; and how it was an "illusion" to think it could be done in Pakistan.
So, basically, this "vital Western interest" Europeans must fight for doesn't apply concerning American allies/clients. Which makes me think that Henry Kissinger is not full of wisdom, but of something that smells bad. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
Either there are no Western interests in the region and we don't fight. Or there are vital Western interests in the region and we have to fight.
Kissinger is implying here that there are Western interests in Afghanistan (which I don't buy) - otherwise "we" shouldn't be fighting over there. He also uses the Domino theory for fundamental Islam (which I also don't buy) and says that a war is the only way to fight it (disagree fierecely). So, if I get this right, because in potentia Europe is threatened by the increasing polarization and fundamentalism (fed amongst others by the war doctrine of the USA itself) we should defend our interests already over there so we don't lose them here.
<head hurts of juggling different viewpoints>
The first description that comes to mind: Chinese finger trap.
And beneath the smoke, it's the beginning of a new NATO doctrine: open combat in parts of the world that are far from the alliance's original sphere of application, and according to US specifications. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
