[spodi]

Who do you prefer out of two foreigners who played big roles in America's foreign policy. Kissinger or Brzezinski? Why?

[quetzalcoatl]

I prefer Zbigniew Brzezinski because you can say his name and people think you have Tourette's Syndrome (Zviad Gamsakhurdia would be my second choice).

I also acknowledge ZB's more modern relation to transnational capital. Kissinger was the Last of the Medusans in his advocacy of the Great Game of empire. ZB is more in tune with a modern understanding of empire which subsumes national aspirations.

[EuropeanConservative]

Who do you prefer out of two foreigners who played big roles in America's foreign policy. Kissinger or Brzezinski? Why?

I am not a huge fan of either and consider both of the overrated. If I have to choose between them I choose Kissinger because he was more influential and can claim credit for a few smart moves.

[spodi]

Cool, you said they're overrated, could you recommend other individuals to me? I'm really into foreign policy. Thanks.

[EuropeanConservative]

Cool, you said they're overrated, could you recommend other individuals to me? I'm really into foreign policy. Thanks.

Somebody I do rate very highly is Condoleeza Rice.

If you're looking for historically significant and top-rate US foreign policy officials people like John Quicy Adams, Henry Stimson, George Marshall and Dean Acheson come to mind as significant Secretaries of State. Other than Condoleeza Rice the only still living ex-Secretary of State I would rate very highly is James Baker.

[DrSteveBrule]

Somebody I do rate very highly is Condoleeza Rice.

Oh god no. Rice peddled the BS of Bush and Cheney to invade Iraq, and deliberately withheld information about torture.

Kissinger was a realist, and he handled some of the toughest political challenges tacitly. I don't agree with him on everything, but he was probably one of the best secretaries of states.

[Oberon]

Kissinger of the two choices by a long shot. His was the more difficult and dangerous minefield to maneuver relative to what the later foreign policy chiefs had to deal with; his outstanding results simplified the options and manuevering room for those who came later, immediately after up to today's. There are of course still brushfire wars around the world since, but they are relatively small potatoes and minor compared to the potential war that could have broken out if Kissinger had't been successful or less cunning. He made U.S. hegemony a reality and with it a period of relative peace and growth, despite all the hubris, wrist slitting contrarian pundits, and academic fantasist criticisms of him.

[nucklepunche]

It would be interesting to see what both men think of themselves. Both of them were realists but Brzinski seems to hold more of a Wilsonian realism, which does see a role for US power in spreading democracy. Kissinger is more steeped in realpolitik, although I imagine from his view he was bringing peace in the only realistic way he knew how.

Kissinger is interesting in that he manged to anger both the peace movement and the neoconservatives. In the end he would probably say both visions are idealistic and his way ultimately reduced the body count the most, although I am not sure he would say it out loud.