Henry Kissinger

In reading the George Black and R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. columns (Sept. 22) on Henry Kissinger, I wondered how two people could come to such different conclusions about the same person. My answer: the frame of reference each writer used to evaluate Kissinger’s behavior and accomplishments. Philosophers and ethicists call this debate one of means and ends. Black says that means (process or the way you do something) are as important as ends. Tyrrell says that ends (in this case a strong foreign policy) are the most important criterion.

I would suggest that Henry Kissinger fails both tests. In my opinion the end never justifies using unacceptable means. The reason is simple to see but difficult to implement. Has spending ourselves into near-bankruptcy, for security purposes, really provided the security we want? Has despoiling our environment for short-term jobs really provided long-term economic security?

Henry Kissinger may or may not be a wonderful human being, but his views certainly have not proved workable in giving us what we need--long-term sustainable global security and cooperation. It is this result that shows the inadequacy of his vision and the ineffectiveness of his methods.

NICHOLAS R. RAY, Encino