Uncategorized

Holbrooke on Woodward, Afghanistan

By Michael Crowley | @CrowleyTIME | September 22, 2010 | +

NPR has sent around an excerpt from a “Talk of the Nation” interview with Richard Holbrooke, Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. According to early reports, Bob Woodward’s new book depicts Holbrooke as skeptical that Obama’s Afghanistan strategy can succeed. Holbrooke tells NPR that he’s going to “duck” any questions about the book until he’s had a chance to see it. But when asked a more direct question about Obama’s policy, he gives an answer that doesn’t inspire great confidence:

MR. CONAN: Well let me put it in a slightly different way, then. From this remove, a lot of people in this country see a government that is weak, and corrupt, that appears to be losing ground to the Taliban…. Can the President’s policy succeed?

AMB. HOLBROOKE: Well, I signed on for the strategy we’re now carrying out. And we are doing the civilian portion of it in ways that I am actually quite proud of. We have a fantastically dedicated team in the provinces and Kabul and Islamabad, and here in Washington and New York. And we’re doing the things that really matter to the people of Afghanistan in support of that strategy. I believe in those things. I think Afghanistan has gone through an unbelievably difficult 32 years, and they deserve, particularly given our historic role there, they deserve our involvement. Also, a vacuum in Afghanistan would be a strategic catastrophe for the region. And I’m not reasserting a domino theory left over from another war and another place and another century. I’m simply referring to the obvious interaction between Afghanistan, Pakistan and above all, the people who threaten our homeland so directly and operate of the border regions in Pakistan and then Afghanistan. So I’m supporting the strategy and implementing the policy under the direction of the President and Secretary of State Clinton.

Note that Holbrooke says he “signed on for the strategy,” has a fantastic team, thinks Afghanistan is important, and is “supporting the strategy and implementing the policy.” But why can’t he just say whether he thinks the strategy will succeed? Perhaps I’m over-parsing, but the concern here is that Woodward is right and he simply doesn’t.

Related Topics: Uncategorized

  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images
    Closeup May 25, 2012

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    From our Partners

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA
    2012 Election May 25, 2012

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • apr2563

    Michael, might it be he actually wants to read the book. Unlike the Village pundocracy, diplomats have a need to be “diplomatic”. Maybe he wants to check out how many annonymous source Woodword used in this book.
    From the excerpts I have read, Obama thinks the military policy does not work and wants a way out.
    I still believe in the old Vietnam era solution: Say we won and leave.

  • afguy

    I still believe in the old Vietnam era solution: Say we won and leave.
    .
    I believe that the quote belonged to one George Aiken, a senator from Vermont, who said we should “declare victory and get the h*ll out of there”.

  • apr2563

    You are right afguy. I knew it was a Vermonter but couldn’t remember his name or the exact quote. I do remember agreeing with him wholeheartedly and thinking how brave he was.

  • apr2563

    Michael, it might be his answer is incomplete because the pundocracy is already cherry picking comments from the book. Example: Biden saying Holbrooke is egotistical but not including he also said he is probably best for the job.
    Everytime Woodword publishes a book, the Villagers become breathless and unquestioning.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Goodness you are a horrible reporter.
    .
    At least you have a modicum of self-awareness in your final paragraph to state that you are just making things up.
    .
    Please return to TNR. Please.

  • michaelfury
  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    This reminds me of all the drivel we went through when we were debating whether or not we were doing enough to ‘win’ in Iraq. War no longer resembles a football game. There will be no final whistle. There will be no surrender and there will be no armistice. The only question worth asking is “Are we making things better or worse?” Holbrooke clearly states that he thinks we’re making things better. He may be wrong, but any question about ‘suceeding’ is simply meaningless.

  • pneogy

    “Perhaps I’m over-parsing, but the concern here is that Woodward is right and he simply doesn’t.”

    Who simply doesn’t? Woodward? Holbrook?

    What does Woodward or Holbrook simply doesn’t do?

    I don’t think over-parsing is the problem here.

  • maverick2k9

    Over-parsing armchair Village idiot who googles for information. Thats what you are.
    -
    Do you actually get paid for this drivel???

  • afguy

    The politicians were different then – they would actually talk to each other and had senses of humor.
    .
    IIRC, the leaders of each party could still meet over dinner or a drink after the day’s work.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    Wow….you’re waaaaay too used to the Bush regime unsupported overconfidence. What, should Holbrooke be running around with a “Mission Accomplished” banner or something? Come on. The guy has a job to do and there’s a thousand players in what might be the most politically confusing region in the world (with two Talibans, Afghanistan with the Pashtun and Northern Alliance, Pakistan with the Civilian government and the Pakistani military and the ISI, India and God knows how many players there, and a good half dozen other powers in the Middle East and that’s just on the macro level) and showing too much optimism or too much pessimism or too much emotion whatsoever could easily send a signal to any one of these players changing their behaviors to get a more favorable deal.

blog comments powered by Disqus