ADRIAN MORGAN: ON RICHARD HOLBROOKE…..
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8165/pub_detail.asp
Richard C. Holbrooke and the Situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan
A Personal Opinion
Yesterday the administration’s Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, died. On Friday, he had undergone an operation to repair a torn aorta, which was known to be a risky procedure with a low chance of survival. The 21-hour operation finished on Saturday, carried out by his Pakistani-born doctor.
While expressing regret for his relatives, and aware that he achieved much in his lifetime, perhaps the eulogies should be left to those already circulating in the media and online. The New York Times offered a generally positive obituary, describing Holbrooke thus:
A brilliant, sometimes abrasive infighter, he used a formidable arsenal of facts, bluffs, whispers, implied threats and, when necessary, pyrotechnic fits of anger to press his positions. Mr. Obama, who praised Mr. Holbrooke on Monday afternoon at the State Department as “simply one of the giants of American foreign policy,” was sometimes driven to distraction by his lectures.
But Mr. Holbrooke dazzled and often intimidated opponents and colleagues around a negotiating table. Some called him a bully, and he looked the part: the big chin thrust out, the broad shoulders, the tight smile that might mean anything. To admirers, however, including generations of State Department protégés and the presidents he served, his peacemaking efforts were extraordinary.
Of all of Obama’s appointees, Holbrooke was the most forceful and dynamic. He was also a man of great integrity. Holbrooke was respected by many for his no-nonsense approach to diplomacy. From an air force base in Dayton, Ohio, he was the architect of the Dayton Accords that finally brought an end to the ugly and genocidal civil war that afflicted Bosnia. However, though the results of these accords brought peace in 1995, he had threatened to bomb both sides unless they agreed to come to the negotiating table. European politicians were shocked at his choosing to threaten, rather than cajole, the parties.
When he was appointed to be the Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009, supporters hoped that his brusque approach could bring some form of resolution to the ongoing conflicts. In practice, Holbrooke supported the rarely-reported drone strikes upon suspected extremist targets. A few such incidents had happened under the Bush administration, but under the current administration they have increased dramatically. While these have taken place with little coverage in the press, allowing the POTUS to give the impression that America is a “friend” to the Muslim world, drones are notoriously indiscriminate killing machines.
Though a very limited number of drone strikes in Waziristan under the Bush administration were used to take out senior Al Qaeda figures, many villagers have also been killed in such attacks. It is undoubtedly true that dangerous ideologues and architects of terror have been annihilated while Richard Holbrooke called the shots, but the sheer number of such attacks and the lowly status of many of the targets have drawn ire from Pakistan. More disturbingly, by attacking houses in erstwhile peaceful village areas, such tactics could easily alienate people on the ground. They could even serve to recruit new members to the Islamist anti-Western “cause.”
Similarly, in Afghanistan a total of 1,434 American soldiers have died while they were at war with the Taliban. If one adds in the coalition troops who have laid down their lives in the war against the Taliban, that figure rises to 2,262. The contradictory dealings of the corrupt and manic depressive Afghan president Hamid Karzai – who at one hand wanted to be protected from a Taliban takeover while on the other hand inviting the Taliban to talks – caused outrage. Relatives of fallen troops questioned why their loved ones were sacrificed fighting an enemy that was being indulged by the Afghanistan regime.
Karzai’s attempts at rapprochement with the Taliban were also encouraged by Holbrooke, who believed all sides should be brought to the negotiating table. Other obituaries may praise his vision, but Holbrooke’s support for sustained drone strikes in Pakistan, and his support for having Taliban in peace talks cannot be praised. Both may have helped to destabilize the Afpak region.
There is no doubt that Richard C. Holbrooke cared deeply about the fate of the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but while Taliban activists currently continue to kill American and coalition troops with IEDs, the Taliban should never be included in peace settlements.
Similarly, drone strikes have their place in dealing with terrorists who live in mountainous areas of Pakistan. In these harsh and inaccessible regions even Pakistani troops have failed to suppress extreme Islamists, but overuse of such operations is lazy and ultimately self-defeating.
Afghanistan, despite the pronouncements of the administration which seeks to remove most of its combat forces next year, is no closer to achieving lasting peace than it was five years ago. Pakistan, whose intelligence agency ISI has played both sides – pretending to support America while actively funding the actions of the Taliban in Afghanistan – has been a fickle ally. All drone strikes rely upon intelligence to be successful. With much of that intelligence provided by the ISI, an organization with divided loyalties, drone operations cannot be expected to win peace in the region.
Richard C. Holbrooke’s legacy in Bosnia showed that a forceful approach could bring results. 15 years after some of the worst sectarian violence in Europe, there is still peace and political stability in Bosnia and among its immediate neighbors. For that, Holbrooke should be praised.
However, on his legacy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, there is no comparative peace. Pakistan has grown in status as an incubator and exporter of international terrorists. Negotiating with the Taliban is a waste of time. The Taliban have no intention of implementing a society that is remotely “democratic” or law-abiding.
For his fearsome diplomacy in Bosnia Richard Holbrooke scored a great success, but in dealings with Pakistan and Afghanistan, two corrupt and virtually failed states, there was never any hope of success. Implementing a no-fly zone and demanding strict passport control of those entering or leaving the mountain passes connecting the tribal regions to the outside world could provide a solution to these countries’ export of terrorism. However, while Pakistan has a corrupt leadership, and with the ISI covertly interfering with the situation on the ground, any well-intentioned measures to bring peace and stability would soon be undermined.
We salute your individualism, your courage and four decades of service to your country, Richard Holbrooke. May you rest in peace.
But may your strategies in Waziristan also rest in peace.
Comments are closed.
