A diplomatic agenda which works on interests rather than friendships will ensure that no principled decisions will be made and no progress is possible. It is a policy of managed chaos rather than social development.

So Churchill shouldn't have allied with Stalin against Hitler?

When the US was playing footsie with Saddam, Iran looked the bigger menace -- guys who couldn't even play by basic accepted rules like 'you don't seize embassies'. (The US never played nearly as much said footsie as the Soviets and the Europeans of course.)

It is always a tough call, the principle v practicality one in international affairs. Stopping Hitler required allying with one of history's great tyrants and mass murderers. I lean towards erring on the side of principle, but I understand the constraints of practically.

With Keegan, I wasn't talking about his projections (historians shouldn't, they have a bad record on that) but being an historian. Can't comment on his views on military intelligence because I haven't read the book, but we are talking about a very great military historian (his The Face of Battle is brilliant).

The Qassim and Mossadeq cases also occurred in the context of a global struggle, of course.