Inside the mind of Henry Kissinger:

There’s the headline, in big font, all capital letters, bright red, atop The Drudge Report, all day Sunday and even into Monday morning: “KISSINGER: IRAQ MILITARY WIN IMPOSSIBLE.” At my age, 83, I’m too old really to appreciate the Internet, but I always know a good headline when I see one. And so I know I’m still a big player in international politics, three decades after I left government.

The Drudge headline refers to an interview I gave to the BBC’s “Sunday AM” show, in which I was asked if America can achieve military victory in Iraq. I answered, “If you mean by ‘military victory’ an Iraqi government that can be established … that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don’t believe that is possible.” It was a complicated quote, full of subordinate clauses, but headline writers were right to sum it up as they did.

Some observers might note I am changing my tone – and they would be correct. In September, Bob Woodward’s big book, “State of Denial,” revealed that I was a “powerful, largely invisible influence on Bush’s Iraq policy.” What was I telling the White House? My line then was, “Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.” Did I believe what I was saying then? Not really. But it’s what George W. Bush and my old pal Dick Cheney wanted to hear. My words made them happy, getting me back in the White House, where I am happy – a win-win! And my influence was “invisible,” of course, until it became visible in Woodward’s book. Gee, I wonder how that happened? Chalk up more billings for Kissinger-McLarty Associates: Big clients want to be assured that I’m still wired into Washington power.

Back in the good old days, I was more than wired. I was “Super K,” constantly on front pages and magazine covers. From 1969 to 1977, I was the White House national security adviser and/or the 56th secretary of state, running U.S. foreign policy – oh, wait, I can’t completely forget my then-boss, Dick Nixon, can I? A smart but deeply flawed fellow, wasn’t he? But it was I who won the Nobel Peace Prize, not he.

Since the ’70s, I have had to struggle to maintain my prominence. It hasn’t always been easy. Don Rumsfeld, for example, never liked me – too bad about him, eh? And sometimes my power gambits didn’t work out: Paul Bremer, the would-be democratic transformer of Iraq, was a protege of mine, although I now prefer to think of him as “Paul Who?” Also a failure was my bid to co-chair the 9/11 Commission back in 2002; I had too many conflicts of interest, they said. And for the same reason, they say, I wasn’t invited to join the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

And this Jim Baker, who is he but a wannabe version of me? What’s his big idea? He wants Uncle Sam to look beyond Iraq, to negotiate with Iran and Syria. Well, of course that’s a good idea, to go over the heads of the enemy – because I thought of it first!

Thirty-five years ago, when Baker was a tennis-playing lawyer in Houston, I traveled to Moscow and Beijing to work out a public “peace with honor” for the Vietnam conflict – although privately, to be sure, I called it a “decent interval” until we lost. And I had the same idea when I told the BBC that we had to “redefine the course” in Iraq, short of victory.

Now Baker has the same kind of decent interval in mind – I guess he wants a Nobel, too. Can’t blame him for that.

But first, I have to get myself back in the middle of the Iraq debate. Which I have now done, thank you very much.