George F. Kennan: An American Life (45 page)

The question became more than hypothetical on February 21, when the British embassy informed the State Department that the British government, staggering under the burdens of postwar recovery and beset by one of the worst winters ever, could no longer provide military and economic assistance to Greece and Turkey. The news shocked Truman and most of his advisers, but Acheson had seen it coming and was ready with a response. A Foreign Office official caught its substance when he reported a growing conviction in Washington “that no time must be lost in plucking the torch of world leadership from our chilling hands.” With Marshall new in his job and about to depart for Moscow, Acheson took the lead in determining how this might be done. And on February 24 he brought Kennan—still at the war college—into the planning process.
¹¹

The forum was a committee convened that day under Henderson’s chairmanship to draft recommendations for the president and the secretary of state. Kennan remembered arguing that the United States had to replace the aid the British would now be withholding: “I returned to my home late that evening with the simulating impression of having participated prominently in a historic decision of American foreign policy.” But the minutes of the meeting failed to record his remarks, and Kennan later learned that Truman, Marshall, and Acheson had already decided to extend assistance. “If, on this occasion, I somewhat overrated the effectiveness of my own voice, it would not be the last time that egotism, and the attention my words seemed often to attract on the part of startled colleagues, would deceive me as to the measure of my real influence on the process of decision-taking.”
¹²

The problem now was to defend this departure from traditional noninvolve-ment in European affairs before Congress and the American people. Acheson improvised a solution at a meeting with the president and congressional leaders on February 27 after Marshall—never rhetorically adept—fumbled his own presentation. The world was now divided into two hostile camps, Acheson warned, a situation unprecedented since the days of Rome and Carthage. If Greek communists, with Soviet support, won the civil war the British had so far kept them from winning, the infection—like the rot from bad apples in a barrel—could spread from Iran in the east to France and Italy in the West, with devastating consequences for American interests. The Soviet Union was poised to reap great gains at minimal costs. Only the United States stood in the way.
¹³

That shook the skeptical legislators, and by early March drafts of a presidential speech were circulating justifying aid for both Greece and Turkey in terms of an American obligation to secure “a world of free peoples” against the imposition of dictatorships “whether fascist, nazi, communist, or of any other form.” Kennan read one of these on the sixth and objected to it strongly: “What I saw made me extremely unhappy.” He favored assisting Greece but not Turkey, where there was no civil war. He worried about provoking the Soviet Union, whose ambitions in the region he thought were limited. And why should a crisis in a single country become the occasion for an open-ended commitment to resist oppression everywhere? After complaining to Henderson and Acheson, Kennan produced a less sweeping draft and waited to see what the results would be.
¹⁴

Two nights later the Achesons hosted a dinner party. The Kennans attended, as did David Lilienthal, still chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and one of the best diarists in Washington. Having read and been much struck by the “long telegram” a year earlier, he was meeting Kennan for the first time:

Acheson was anything but quiet that evening: “Dean spent a good deal of the time bubbling over with enthusiasm, rapture almost, about General Marshall,” who had entrusted him with “a historic change in American policy.” Kennan, however, was uneasy, brooding about how to aid the Greeks without their resenting it, anxious that Truman not play up the affair too much, “so that prestige isn’t too deeply involved.” It had been a particularly good moment, Lilienthal concluded, “to have an evening’s talk with these two men.”
¹⁵

But Truman played up Greece—and Turkey—for all they were worth when he addressed Congress on March 12: the choice the world faced, he insisted, was between governments based on the will of the majority and those that denied it. In what quickly became known as the Truman Doctrine, the president announced “that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Achesonian hyperbole had prevailed, while Kennan’s cautions had been ignored. He had approached the edge of policy making at a critical moment, but had got no further.
¹⁶

Kennan consoled himself by rewriting the president’s speech two days later in a war college lecture. The need to act did often leave little time to think, he reminded the students: “You have to take a deep breath and decide, for better or for worse.” Truman had decided to ensure that people who wished to achieve national security “are not deprived of the possibility of doing so through lack of our support, when the measure of that support is within reasonable limits.” This final qualification, however, was Kennan’s, not Truman’s.

Greece, Kennan thought, lay within American capabilities. It was small but accessible, and the amount the president had asked for—$400 million—was roughly what New Yorkers spent on consumer goods in a single day. The stakes were high, though, because reports indicated “that unless something was done to instill confidence in us” among the Greeks, “there would be no halting of the advance of Communism in that country, not because people wanted it but because they are hungry, they are tired, they haven’t anything, ... [t]hey are afraid.” Without some hope, they would reluctantly make peace with the other side, and so might desperate people elsewhere in Europe. If that happened, the Soviet Union would not need to mount a military invasion: it would instead work through “subterranean penetration” to make it look as though communism were taking hold spontaneously.

Turkey was different. Its strategic importance was obvious, but the Turks had staunchly resisted Soviet pressures. They had turned their country into a bowling ball without holes, leaving Moscow looking in vain for a grip. If they kept their nerve, “it is going to be awfully hard for the Russians to find a pretext for monkey business there.” The same was true in the Middle East: was it really likely, given the region’s psychology and its “patriarchal” system, that the Soviet Union could take it over? And then there were regions “where you could perfectly well let people fall prey to totalitarian domination without any tragic consequences for world peace in general.” China was one: feeding it, clothing it, and resolving its social problems would probably be “beyond the resources of the whole world put together.”
¹⁷

Kennan, thus, dismantled the Truman Doctrine immediately after the president proclaimed it—a risky move, one might think, for a new policy planner. Again, though, the agile Acheson was ahead of him: he had quietly assured congressional leaders the day after Truman spoke that the United States would act only in areas “where our help can be effective in resisting [Soviet] penetration.” So why the grandiose rhetoric in the first place? Kennan concluded years later that the Truman Doctrine reflected an American urge “to seek universal formulae or doctrines in which to clothe and justify particular actions.” It seemed not to have occurred to anyone that the better approach might be simply “to let the President, or the Secretary of State, use his head.”
¹⁸

But democracies never allow their leaders the total freedom to use their heads. “He really had a childlike quality in such matters,” Dean Rusk, who would later become secretary of state, recalled of Kennan. “He was an elitist.... He took the view that the function of Congress was to keep the public off the backs of the foreign policy professionals.” Administrations have to act within boundaries, and the Truman Doctrine was meant to expand those that existed at the time. Its purpose was not simply to frighten Congress into aiding Greece and Turkey, although it had that effect and was meant to. It also set a goal for the future, however unattainable it might for the moment be. It was the geopolitical equivalent of a navigational beacon, pointing the way toward a destination beyond the visible horizon. Machiavelli would have approved: four centuries earlier he had advised his prince to follow the example of “prudent archers” who, “knowing how far the strength of their bow carries, . . . set their aim much higher than the place intended, not to reach such height with their arrow, but to be able with the aid of so high an aim to achieve their plan.” Acheson’s arrow flew right over Kennan, but as a policy planner he would benefit from its trajectory, nonetheless.
¹⁹

On March 7, 1947—the day Armstrong agreed to publish Kennan anonymously in
Foreign Affairs
—Acheson, now acting secretary of state, formally asked the National War College to find a new deputy commandant for foreign affairs. Having authorized the creation of a “planning board,” Marshall had found Kennan to be “by far the best qualified man in our Service to fill the top post.” Appropriately, Kennan was lecturing that day on his 1943 Azores bases experience. He had chosen the case, he told his students, because it provided “a rather striking test-tube example” of the dangers that could come from lack of coordination within the government.
²⁰

No date was set for Kennan’s return to the State Department, so he continued to teach while helping shape the policy Truman had set in motion. The
Foreign Affairs
article
,
never a top priority, now became less of one: having agreed to do it, Kennan lacked the time to write anything new. Armstrong had anticipated this when he suggested the Yale lecture as a suitable text, but Kennan had recently finished another essay he thought would work better. He had written it for Forrestal, whom Kennan remembered “as a man of burning, tireless energy, determined . . . to take both time and problems by the forelock.” One of the first Washington officials to sound the alarm about Soviet behavior, he had been “much concerned that we should get to the bottom of this problem as soon as possible and find out what it was we were dealing with.”
²¹

Forrestal’s first guide had been Edward F. Willett, a Smith College professor who had sent him an analysis of “Dialectical Materialism and Russian Objectives” several weeks before Kennan’s “long telegram” arrived. The Navy secretary found Willett’s essay impressive and shared it widely. Kennan, however, thought it abstract and alarmist, and when Forrestal asked for his opinion on Willett, Kennan dodged the request, offering instead his own ideas. They took the form of a six-thousand-word paper on the “Psychological Background of Soviet Foreign Policy,” forwarded to Forrestal at the end of January 1947. Forrestal acknowledged it on February 17 as “extremely well-done,” and promised to pass it on to Marshall. It was safe to assume that the distribution would not stop there.
²²

“Now that [the] article has been noted in official circles,” Kennan asked one of Forrestal’s aides on March 10, would the Navy secretary object to its being published anonymously in
Foreign Affairs
? Forrestal did not, and on April 8 the State Department’s Committee on Unofficial Publications also approved the plan. “I then crossed out my own name in the signature of the article, replaced it with an ‘X’ to assure the anonymity, sent it on to Mr. Armstrong, and thought no more about it.” Kennan made only a few handwritten corrections in the text. He also suggested a note, which Armstrong chose not to use: “The author of this article is one who has had long experience with Russian affairs, both practically and academically, but whose position makes it impossible for him to write about them under his own name.”
²³

Kennan’s essay was much less casual than its publication arrangements. He began it, as he had the “long telegram,” with an explanation of how Marxism-Leninism shaped the beliefs and behavior of Soviet leaders. But ideology was now no longer just the “fig leaf of their moral and intellectual respectability”: it was also the “pseudo-scientific justification” by which Stalin and his subordinates clung to power despite their failure to find popular support at home or to overthrow capitalism elsewhere. Convinced that they alone knew what was good for society, they recognized “no restrictions, either of God or man, on the character of their methods.” That meant, paradoxically, that they could never be secure, because their “aggressive intransigence” had already provoked a backlash: the Kremlin leaders were finding it necessary, in Gibbon’s phrase, “to chastise the contumacy” their own actions had generated. “It is an undeniable privilege of every man to prove himself right in the thesis that the world is his enemy,” Kennan reminded his readers, “for if he reiterates it frequently enough and makes it the background of his conduct he is bound eventually to be right.”

“Canonized” by the excesses it had committed, the Soviet system could not now dispense with its own infallibility. Stalin would always be right, for if truth were ever found to reside elsewhere, no basis would remain for his rule. As a result,