What is confusing you is that you are only seeing the potential tactics suggested by the speaker, Kennan. Then, in the reduced quote, you see a misrepresentation of those tactics, so you call foul.

However, the reduced quote attempts to do away with the issue of tactics altogether and simply point out the declared motivation that prompts Kennan into calling for the use of even morally bankrupt actions as a means to focus power.

To the point, he says these things,…

Furthermore, we have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.

He says, very clearly, ‘we have a massively disproportionate amount of wealth’. He then effectively says, ‘we should stop at near NOTHING to keep it’.

Understanding the quote as it is used requires *gasp* a paradigm shift for you. Which incidentally is also the case for the opinion you borrowed from that site you linked to. If you cannot do this, you have no place in a political argument.

As a side note: I particularly like the racist and temporal-centric position taken by Kennan,

“The greatest of the Asiatic peoples—the Chinese and the Indians—have not yet even made a beginning at the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the relationship between their food supply and their birth rate.”

Like all imperialists, it is as if he blames his would be targets for their having been conquered by Britain, and forced into lopsided free trade agreements. Agreements that led to massive famine and economic collapse. His thinking seems to be, they are incompetent, and so while it would be reasonable to consider their domination, they’re just too damn close to the commies.

Or, I also like the other section you left out where he talks about control of those countries that are tactically useful to US needs.

“We should recognize that our influence in the Far Eastern area in the coming period is going to be primarily military and economic. We should make a careful study to see what parts of the Pacific and Far Eastern world are absolutely vital to our security, and we should concentrate our policy on seeing to it that those areas remain in hands which we can control or rely on. It is my own guess, on the basis of such study as we have given the problem so far, that Japan and the Philippines will be found to be the corner-stones of such a Pacific security system and if we can contrive to retain effective control over these areas there can be no serious threat to our security from the East within our time.”

Yep, nothing like keeping things in context, huh Tom?