In the Arena

Holbrooke’s Last Words, Take Three

My first reaction to Richard Holbrooke’s “You’ve got to stop this war” comment to his Pakistani surgeon was that Dick obviously was joking, trying to ease the mood–which would have been very much like him. I was, thus, surprised when people seemed to be taking the comment seriously today–I mean, why would he implore his surgeon to end the war? And, furthermore, Holbrooke was so immersed in the complexities of the situation, the notion that you could simply “stop” this frustrating conflict would seem ridiculous to him.

We talked about this over dinner a few weeks ago, just before I headed off for another tour of the war zone (an obsession of mine that he had launched and nurtured, much to my family’s dismay). Holbrooke had grave doubts about the efficacy of U.S. military action in Afghanistan–that was nothing new. He believed the conflict would only be resolved diplomatically, that equilibrium could only be reached in Afghanistan if the Pakistanis and Indians established better relations, and stopped seeing Afghanistan as a strategic prize…and he was frustrated by the inability of all the regional players to understand that peace was in their best long-term interests (especially the Pakistanis, whose obsession with military matters–and paranoia about India–was crippling their ability to build the bouyant economy necessary for a stable state). But he also believed the U.S. had made a moral commitment to Afghanistan and saw a long-term involvement as inevitable. At the very least, the U.S. had to continue training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces–which wouldn’t be cheap, he told me: an estimated $7-8 billion per year.

As always, Holbrooke saw the problem in the broadest possible strategic terms: there was a vital U.S. national security interest in calming down the region, especially  Pakistan, with its 80+ nuclear weapons and history of military coups, sometimes of an Islamist nature. He understood this could only be done slowly, patiently, with ample doses of humanitarian and carefully targeted military aid. He could talk at length, and often did, about the maddening complications governing every aspect of his last mission. There was no “end”  to the conflict, in his mind. There was a gradual transition, from perpetual war to something resembling stability, if not exactly peace. When he died, he was not optimistic that such a path could be found–but he was entirely committed to, indeed obsessed with, trying to find it.

I’ll have more to say about Richard in the next issue of the magazine, and here on Swampland. There’s a lot of ground to cover. I’m feeling an enormous, numbing personal loss, and the country has suffered a terrible loss as well.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    The Phony War

    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.

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

    Audacity of Dope: Tales of a Toking Teenage Obama

    We knew Barack Obama smoked weed in high school because he wrote about it in his books. What we didn’t know until Buzzfeed posted these choice nuggets (I’m so sorry) from David Maraniss’s new book on the President’s younger years, is the giggle-worthy details of his “Choom Gang” lifestyle, which are right out of a buddy stoner flick. Obama and his friends drove around the lush Hawaii countryside, hot-boxing their VW bus and re-upping with a long-haired pizza-tossing dealer named Ray, who Obama thanked in his yearbook “for all the good times.”

  • trifecta55

    I thought he really meant “NO Labels 2012″.
    .
    Seriously though, in an age where Brent Scowcroft, James Baker would be suspect in the GOP, it was nice that Holbrooke was allowed to even do anything that reaked of diplomacy.
    .
    Our country is doomed. Have a nice day.

  • stuartzechman

    Joe Klein:
    .
    You write
    .
    I’m feeling an enormous, numbing personal loss
    .
    , so I will simply say that I am sorry for your loss, and leave it at that.

  • apr2563

    Joe, I respect your grief and hope you use the good memories you have of your friend as solace.

  • Cliff

    I was, thus, surprised when people seemed to be taking the comment seriously today–I mean, why would he implore his surgeon to end the war?
    .
    That’s an…interesting interpretation.
    .
    I thought the clear interpretation was that Holbrooke meant “you” in the abstract, as in a message for anyone who might be listening.
    .
    he was frustrated by the inability of all the regional players to understand that peace was in their best long-term interests
    .
    If that’s true, then why would you assume that he was joking about ending the war?
    .
    The version released by the State Department is more easily recognized as a joke, but you clearly point to “You’ve got to stop this war” as the source for this post.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Fair enough, but if it’s a personal loss, then shouldn’t he restrict the dimensions of his comments to their personal relationship, as opposed to Holbrooke’s (& Joe’s own) reasoning about a very public issue?

  • stuartzechman

    I’m not going to speculate on why Joe felt the need to restate Holbrooke’s positions at face value (and as essentially identical to his own) at this time.
    .
    There will be other opportunities for debate at more appropriate moments.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    In the meantime, there’s always Twitter, right?

  • formerlyjames

    Mr. Klein, I am sorry for the loss of your friend. Not being an admirer of US foreign policy during the 50 years that Mr. Holbrooke served, from what I can see he served more time resolving difficult issues than in formulating the policies to begin with, and I most certainly envy your friendship and exchange with him. He was most obviously an intriguing person and your loss is shared with many people who had the privilege of knowing him.

  • stuartzechman

    I thought you didn’t do Twitter, Oregon JC!
    .
    Has there been a change in policy?

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Our media’s focus on Holbrooke’s last words is a characteristically distracting, celebrified, emotional approach to our Afghanistan policy, in lieu of a careful, considered explanation of our goals, actions, and tactics there. Presumably, a Lexis search for “Holbrooke w/10 ‘last words’” in the past 3 days will get about 5000 more hits than “Robert Pape w/10 terrorism.”
    -
    But a rational discussion of what we’re doing there must be rooted in a patient evaluation of what we’re actually capable of achieving and likely to achieve. Otherwise, we may as well just invade every third-world country on the planet, on the grounds that we can build them into wealthy democracies. “Congratulations, Sierra Leone, you’re the next South Korea! Bombing starts at 0500.”
    -
    He believed the conflict would only be resolved diplomatically … [thought stability would come only if countries stopped] seeing Afghanistan as a strategic prize… he was frustrated by the inability of all the regional players to understand that peace was in their best long-term interests (especially the Pakistanis, whose obsession with military matters… was crippling their ability to build the bouyant economy necessary for a stable state).
    -
    Oh good. We’re the Pakistan of the West.
    -
    But he also believed the U.S. had made a moral commitment to Afghanistan and saw a long-term involvement as inevitable.
    -
    An inevitable long-term involvement, shorn of a very well-considered consideration of the costs, benefits, and likelihood of our success, is by definition immoral.
    -
    What’s more, we always tend to view our actions as moral and proper. Of course I can make up a happy version of what we’re doing in Afghanistan; anyone in Afghanistan (or Iran, or wherever) can make up a conspiratorial version. What matters is the reality of and alternatives to our actions on the ground, not whatever PR gloss we’re putting on our occupations these days.
    -
    I’m feeling an enormous, numbing personal loss, and the country has suffered a terrible loss as well.
    -
    I’m sorry for your loss. Thanks for sharing your understanding & memory of Amb. Holbrooke.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    No change in policy as yet, but I follow a fair # of folks (yourself included). Generally the same bloggers/commenters I typically read. I find it a convenient way to be alerted to longer-form articles etc.
    .
    While I’ve not taken the plunge, it is tempting at times. As someone lacking in humanity, it seems to offer limitless possibilities for pithy brutality.

  • stuartzechman

    Given that this is post is a quai-obituary for Richard Holbrooke, I’ll let that last bit go unanswered, JC.

  • http://jcapan.wordpress.com jcapan

    Excellent comment

  • formerlyjames

    jcapan, are you chomping at the bit to let loose one of your diatribes or not? If so, do it. You seem to be restraining yourself. While I am somewhere in the middle (centrist?) between your and Klein’s view of each other, and while some civility is appreciated, I come here for intelligent fireworks as much as anything.

  • Cliff

    On a related note, has anyone read Greenwald’s interview with Nir Rosen?:
    .

    In Pakistan the Americans have to be very delicate and discreet, with respect for Pakistani sensibility. Here everybody knows that they’re collaborating with us, but we have to use drone strikes. If al Qaeda were to set up bases, you know this is the American military, they will just carpet bomb the entire valley. So I don’t see why al Qaeda in Afghanistan is more dangerous than al Qaeda in Pakistan. All that we’ve really succeeded in doing in the last 10 years is pushing the problems of Afghanistan into Pakistan, where the real trouble is.
    .
    I mean, Pakistan has 80 or so nuclear weapons, 170 million people, and this long-standing conflict with India. But as a result of our invasion of Afghanistan, you now have a Pakistani Taliban, you now have al Qaeda in Pakistan, you now have drug networks from Afghanistan pushing to Pakistan, and our drone strikes on the border area are only pushing the Taliban and al Qaeda deeper into Pakistan, into Punjab and Sindh, into Karachi, so we are destabilizing Pakistan, a country which does actually matter in terms of international security, out of some twisted perverse idea that Afghanistan matters and is somehow a threat.
    .
    No, I don’t think if the Taliban took over in Afghanistan again, I don’t think Mullah Omar would come back, and I also don’t think that they would invite al Qaeda back, because they would clearly be against their best interests. We’ve seen an evolution in the way that the Taliban think as well, in how they have learned from their mistakes. And finally, I guess I don’t think al Qaeda is that big of a deal in the first place. A couple of hundred angry guys, not very sophisticated, who used their A team on September 11 and killed 3000 people in the US. Terrible, but that’s been their only success in the last 10 years. So I think it’s insane to go to war in several countries and invest billions and billions of dollars all for what I think is really a pretty minimal threat to the greatest empire the world has ever seen.

    .
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2010/12/13/rosen_transcript/index.html
    .
    This comes at the end of the interview. What Rosen has to say about Iraq is even more interesting, IMHO.

  • http://shortplaysaboutrealpeople.wordpress.com Michael Maiello

    Very sorry for your loss, Joe.

    As to this, “the notion that you could simply “stop” this frustrating conflict would seem ridiculous to him…” I think it’s important to point out that we can stop our part of it at any time. That’s not to say we would be happy with all of the result if we did. But we could. We have that choice and there’s no complexity that takes that away.

  • kbanginmotown

    Thanks for stopping by, trifecta!

  • newfreedomblog

    One has to wonder why Joe and dearly departed Holbrooke have the notion we need to be in Afghanistan spending 7-8 billion a year for the next 100 years?
    .

    “But he also believed the U.S. had made a moral commitment to Afghanistan and saw a long-term involvement as inevitable. At the very least, the U.S. had to continue training and equipping the Afghan National Security Forces”

    .
    And they despise the neo-Colonialism of people in the past on the right? Give me a break. One substitutes colonialism for morality concerns against colonialism for material reasons. Where prey tell is the difference?
    .
    It is too bad during all of your dinners with Holbrooke you couldn’t have put a bug in his ear to simply “get the hell out of that God-forsaken place”, Joe Klein.

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

    One substitutes colonialism for morality concerns against colonialism for material reasons. Where prey tell is the difference?

    Who says the current effort isn’t about material concerns? Manufacturing munitions provide jobs. Have to keep the inventory fresh! And it’s the one industry we WON”T outsource to the Chinese.

  • stuartzechman

    Again, given that this is a quasi-obit, I will let my arguments go unstated, other than to say that Rustydog’s position has great merit, and I fully agree.

  • newfreedomblog

    Simply using Joe Klein’s terminology, or better yet, justification, nothing more, nothing less. But, the hypocrisy is steeped in irony.
    .
    If the truth was ever told, Holbrooke’s purpose in life was to keep Afghanistan from “looking like Vietnam” to the far left liberal base. By painting a picture of “moral” ground to justify this war, liberals can turn a blind eye to the obvious reasons we are in this conflict.
    .
    But, I am hopeful those on the left will eventually awaken from their stupor and begin to protest the use of treasury and lives. Hopefully this time around they can avoid shouting out “baby-killer” to our returning veterans, and instead hold those in Washington solely accountable.

  • newfreedomblog

    Well thank you stuart. Such kind words. I agree that this maybe an obit of sorts from Joe to his good friend. But, I also do not believe that Holbrooke was somehow joking on the gurney headed into what I am also equally certain he knew was very risky surgery to save his life.
    .
    When Joe says, “My first reaction to Richard Holbrooke’s “You’ve got to stop this war” comment to his Pakistani surgeon was that Dick obviously was joking, trying to ease the mood”, is selling the situation Mr Holbrooke found himself in, short. Having been in countless situations where someone is perhaps on their deathbed, 99.9% of the time what they say is nothing short of profound, and perhaps the last words they shall ever utter in this life. Humans I have found in my 50+ odd years have the unique ability, even when not trained medically, to know when the end is near. They take the opportunity in most of these cases to get off their chest those things which they do not want to take with them into the next life.
    .
    I believe Mr Holbrooke was telling it like it is, and meant every word he uttered before he died.

  • nhautamaki

    What are you on about Rustydog? Liberals have been against this war, the Iraq war, and every other unjustified war from day one. It’s the conservatives who have loved to get involved in endless ground wars for murky-at-best reasons with no clear exit strategy (and none wanted) in order to indefinitely expand American hegemony, keep the proles in a constant state of fear and uncertainty, and keep the military industrial machine running and it’s the libs who have been against this machine from the beginning.
    .
    Suddenly a democrat president inherits this unwanted war, receives massive pressure from the Pentagon to expand and prolong it as long as possible, and it’s the “baby-killer” shouting blackfoot hippy libs who are to blame for everything? Where was your pacifism 4 years ago when everyone here but you was decrying the waste of lives and treasure in these stupid foreign adventures then? No, no, then it was the dumbass liberal blackfoot hippy pacifists shutting their eyes to the cold hard reality of a world at war with America whether we like it or not and we had to strike first and strike hardest and it was only thanks to the courage and foresight of our wise and brave conservative leaders that American hadn’t already been taken over by the horrible islamo-fascists in league with the NWO and CNN and god-knows-what-else.
    .
    lol it’s like you think we have NO memory at all!

  • http://ericychan.wordpress.com ericychan

    The “at any time” part is not quite true. Physically withdrawing forces would take 6-12 months at a minimum, and that’s if we make a determined effort to get out ASAP.

  • newfreedomblog

    How about we do this then, nhautamaki. Why not name the Wars with the President who authorized or declared war in our history for the past 150 years.
    .
    Don’t forget to put a (D) or (R) after their name, ok?

  • nhautamaki

    What would be the point of that? The republican party used to be more liberal than the democrats in some ways. D and R have not meant the same things in the last 150 years that they do now. Why not talk about the relevant history, which basically would be starting after the Dixicrat defection and the beginning of the southern strategy and the Nixon administration?

    Seems to me that if you stack up Ford, Reagan, Bush Jr and Sr against Carter, Clinton, and now Obama, you have a pretty clear pattern of conservatives using land war (though, to give full credit, at least successfully in the case of Persian Gulf 1 by Bush Sr) and liberals using diplomacy as much as possible with limited air strikes only if absolutely necessary.
    .
    Do you dispute that actual liberals would love nothing more than to never have gotten into Iraq and to have long since gotten out of Afghanistan (or not gone into Afghanistan either)? Is it the liberals that are in favor of eliminating time tables and expediting the withdrawal of American blood and treasure since Al Qaeda has long since been eliminated as any kind of serious presence in Afghanistan? Is it Democrat Obama fighting against a Pentagon eager to pull out, or is the other way around?

  • newfreedomblog

    “Do you dispute that actual liberals would love nothing more than to never have gotten into Iraq and to have long since gotten out of Afghanistan (or not gone into Afghanistan either)?

    .
    Yes, actual “liberals” like Hillary Clinton were gung-ho on attacking Iraq. Even John Kerry was gung-ho until he noticed that people like Obambi spoke out about it, then he switched his mind. We experienced the worst attack on our soil since Pearl Harbor. Most if not all Americans were not going to go against the vast majority of this issue. Democrats fell into line like sheep and went right along with Bush II in his plans to attack Iraq.
    .

    “Is it the liberals that are in favor of eliminating time tables and expediting the withdrawal of American blood and treasure since Al Qaeda has long since been eliminated as any kind of serious presence in Afghanistan?

    .
    Yes. For the most part liberals have remained silent on Obama’s build-up in Afghanistan. Perhaps they are hopefully optimistic that he will succeed in an un-winnable war. But, those like Joe Klein are not justifying it as a war against those who attacked us on 9/11, he is now justifying the actions in Afghanistan as some kind of “moral” war.
    .

    “Is it Democrat Obama fighting against a Pentagon eager to pull out, or is the other way around?”

    .
    Yes. Obama has been trying desperately to change his image as a non-War President. You want to tell me that increasing troop levels to the current levels is all about peace and prosperity? I didn’t think so. Both Obama and the Pentagon are all in on this for their various selfish reasons. None of them are in the best interests of our country or our military.

  • pelhamite1

    On this one, I think it must be conceded that Democrats have the nation into war more often than Republicans – from our first intervention in the modern era World War I (Roosevelt) to World War II (ditto) to Korea (Truman) to Vietnam (Kennedy, Johnson). The reasons for going to war have been the usual mixture of good and bad, but there can be little doubr that, up to the 21st Century, isolationism has really been the province of the Republicans and the Democrats have been more infused the spirit of liberal interventionism. And there’s nothing all that wrong with that, in my view, either – if the world’s leading military power does not step into certain situations, they will fester into either a true humanitarian crisis (Rwanda) or a state supported attack on our country (Afghanistan).
    .

    There were a few voices of restraint before we started our intervention into Afghanistan and, to be fair, I think a data search would probably show that they came in from both the left and the right (I was more conscious of the left critique, but I am sure there were voices like Rusty’s as well). For better or worse, eliminating the Taliban as a state government was the view of a fairly substantial majority of Americans at the time. That the job has proven longer and harder than many initially imagined is no surprise, really. But the US still has a compelling need to stay and build up a working nation state in Afghanistan if only becaue 1) millions of Afghanis have now cast their lot with the Western forces and to betray them would be deplorable and 2) as holbrooke contended, an unstable Afghanistan would lead, rather inexorably, to an unstable Pakistan, and that would be a costly nightmare of even greater proportions.
    .

    So this one issue is not a liberal vs. conservative thing, although it might be a center vs. left and right thing. Either way, it is Obama’s responsibility to find a solution through a set of daunting conditions on the ground. I will say this – I cannot help but note that the people who have been there seem to be more optimistic about the situation than those who have not.

  • nhautamaki

    In the first half of the twentieth century Democrats led America to war 3 times, yes, but those 3 wars, World War 1, 2, and the Korean War are pretty much universally regarded as the most moral and necessary wars fought in the recent history of humankind.
    .
    Vietnam was a bad mistake and a clearly Democrat blunder but I wouldn’t consider it a ‘liberal’ war. Liberals were at the forefront of the protests against that war despite the fact that it was entered by Democrats.
    .
    As for Rustydog: I think you are badly conflating ‘Democrat’ with ‘Liberal’. stuartzechman has written eloquently and at great length to distinguish actual liberals from members of the Democrat party, which is now run mainly by centrists, third-way, and blue dogs. Actual liberals supported a limited, mostly air-based action against Al-Qaida; not nation-building.

blog comments powered by Disqus