Since the gist of the story is about how these two men worked together, the author's effort at keeping the description of the earlier parts of their lives short is greatly appreciated. The bulk of the book rightly centres on the time of the Nixon presidency, when the two men worked closely together.
The author managed to present a picture of two men working together who were at once very similar in nature to each other but ended up with very different reputations. They needed each other yet at the same time tried to outdo one another. They served the same administration yet were almost at odds with each other on a number of foreign policy issues. They were each other's best friends yet had palpable disdain for each other, with Kissinger calling Nixon the meanest of names (pg 93) while Nixon showing that he was rightly deserving of them through the perverse pleasure he took in distressing Kissinger (pg 288). Such is the skill of the author in crafting a story filled with intriguing personalities and complicated relationships. In the end one could not help wondering about the complexities of Whitehouse relationships.
Both Nixon and Kissinger didn't come out looking very well. Nixon looked like a manipulating, crude, and insecure guy who constantly needed reassurance and reaffirmation about what he was doing. Kissinger on the other hand was egoistic, narcissistic, calculating and self-serving. But both would provide what the other needed: Kissinger was always ready to help Nixon smoke his own dope, giving superlative praises in spades, while Nixon gave Kissinger the opportunities (no matter how unwillingly) to play his role as the super-star of foreign policy. And when things did not work out, they could always resort to threats which they would not carry out, Kissinger on resigning his position, and Nixon on cancelling the summits with various world leaders. Nixon however came out looking slightly worse because of his readiness to resort to "dirty tricks" (pg 186), even as early as MyLai. In the end he would be brought down by one of these and gained the inglorious reputation of being the first (and only) president in the US to resign. In the last two chapters when Watergate was catching up with Nixon, the author portrayed a guy who always seemed to be on the verge of breakdown, and that was where the paths of Nixon and Kissinger diverged. One became almost maniacal, while the other went on to the peak of his reputation as a man who brought peace to the Middle East. It was almost painful to read, but the contrast between their fates only heighten the drama near the end.
This is the second book of Dallek's that I've read, and both I did not enjoy. It was not that he was a bad writer, but I just didn't take to his style. There was no occasion where I found the author's grammar wanting, I think it has more to do with his rather dry style that does not help the story to flow. Also, in this book he quoted Ambrose a lot, giving one the impression that it was the only source that he consulted, but what grated me more was his habit of quoting conversations wholesale, something that he also did in the earlier book that I read. Too much of this makes me feel that he has not analysed his subjects enough.
One also wonders about the approach taken by the author in terms of portraying the characters. Does trying to be fair and impartial equate to ensuring that the subjects are seen in a poor light? We all know what happened with Nixon, but I could hardly find anything in the book that spoke well of him. I am not much of a Nixon fan, but I do not think that he has almost no redeeming features. Kissinger looked better in comparison, but only slightly, and that was because he was put in contrast to Nixon in the last days of the presidency. I think I would not judge this book a fair account of either man, just as one praising the subjects is not necessarily biased.
Finally I would like to talk about a couple of points that I reflected upon as I read the book. Firstly, the elections in the US has a huge impact on policy decision-making. Although I believe this to be true in other democratic countries, what was unfortunate in this case was its impact on the decisions relating to the Vietnam War. Some decisions were purposely delayed because of the election in order to achieve some political optics. These delays caused many American and Vietnamese lives to be lost. While it is easy to put the blame on the politicians, we the electorate should perhaps ask if our way of looking at politicians' behaviours and our inability to comprehend complex issues have led to them needing to 'manipulate' us by presenting the best possible facade.
Secondly, no matter what relationship one has with his/her boss, one should never try to look better than the boss. No bosses like to look less able than their subordinates. Being a deputy is therefore much more challenging than being the boss in some sense; you do not want to look stupid, yet you cannot look smarter than your boss. On occasions Kissinger let his narcissism get the better of him, inccuring Nixon's wrath.
I am no Nixon/Kissinger specialist and do not intent to be one. For a superficial understanding of these two men and their relationship, this book suffices. I suspect that it is positioned as one to fill the gap in the literature of these two men by exploring the complex constructive and yet amazingly self-serving relationship between two of the most important men during the cold war era. For that reason, this is one book that may be of interest to those wanting to know more about how these two men have worked together during their time.
(Find this book at Goodreads)
