See Yahoo article

After so many years of neo-conservative claptrap I was beginning to look fondly on Kissinger's approach. However these statements lead me to believe my view was somewhat, or even severely, rose tinted.

The 'clash of civilisations' line is a rather blatant attempt to hoodwink people into believing that they are involved in a war of annihilation being played out with zero-sum rules. "Them and us," "good verses evil," "smoke them outa' their caves," "Islamafascists" and "Varmint, I'm a-gonna blow you to smithereens!" all come to mind.

I thought Kissinger was too high brow for this sort of stuff. Under the realist perception he adopts it would probably be to the United States' advantage if Europe adopted the 'clash of civilisation' line, but he can hardly believe that Europe would swallow such nonsense.

Indeed, if we assume such a clash is possible the key protagonists must surely be the US, Britain and Israel. They have already managed to land Shia and Sunni Muslims on the same side of the fence, no mean feat. In that act, a significant control on the Middle East was sacrificed and Iran's position was strengthened not inconsiderably by our having to place European troops in a region where they can turn up the heat whenever they want.

So America plays a pivotal role in strengthening an opponent, they then hand them a few additional aces for negotiating with European diplomats, and then they call for Europe to rally around their cause in countering that opponent. Does anyone think I have painted an unfair picture? Or is the entire current Republican foreign policy team, neo-conservative and realist, completely off the wall? Where did Bush Snr's lot go?