> Decades later Kissinger is still considered a role model of a diplomat in some circles. Honestly, why wouldn't he be? I think the mistake you're making is p

> Decades later Kissinger is still considered a role model of a diplomat in some circles. Honestly, why wouldn't he be? I think the mistake you're making is presuming that a role model of a diplomat is determined by your notion of morality. The definition of "diplomacy" is "spoken or written communication by representatives of states (such as leaders and diplomats) intended to influence events in the international system", and the job description of a diplomat is "a person appointed by a state or an intergovernmental institution (...) to conduct diplomacy." Knowing this, and knowing a bit of Kissinger's legacy, it's hard to disagree that he's one of the most successful and influential diplomats in history. He's been directly involved in all the critical events that determined the course of humanity during the 20th century, and he personally influenced or determined their outcome. You might argue over your views on morality and Kissinger's legacy, but it is not possible to reject the fact that Kissinger is perhaps the top diplomat of the 20th century.