Goodbye Richard Holbrooke And Thank You
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke died yesterday at the age of 69. Holbrooke will probably be most remembered for his prominent role in ending the Bosnian War by negotiating the Dayton Peace Accords. According to his obituary he saw his role in negotiation as a pragmatist.
“If you can prevent the deaths of people still alive, you’re not doing a disservice to those already killed trying to do so,” he said.
Mr. Holbrooke, who described the negotiations as “unbelievably difficult,” had been a fierce critic of the international community’s reluctance to take a more active role in addressing the conflict during its early years, calling it “the greatest collective failure of the West since the 1930s.”
Sen. John F. Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Mr. Holbrooke’s “life’s work saved tens of thousands of lives.”
Holbrooke’s current position was as special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s why Richard Holbrooke’s last words echo so strongly.
“You’ve got to stop this war in Afghanistan.”
Spoken to a Pakistani surgeon who was sedating him before surgery.
Tags: Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke
“Saddam Hussein’s activities continue to be unacceptable and, in my view, dangerous to the region and, indeed, to the world,” Holbrooke continued, “not only because he possesses the potential for weapons of mass destruction but because of the very nature of his regime.”
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
Nice selective editing. The context: He was pointing out Saddam would be a major issue…for the UN.
Geezer,
Inspite of his diplomatic credentials and peace-broker reputation, Holbrooke was a warmonger on Iraq.
Sure he was. Let’s review the record:
Aug. 29, 2002: “The road to Baghdad runs through the United Nations security council. This simple truth must be recognised by the Bush administration if it wants the international support that is essential for success in Iraq. … Some will argue that because security council resolutions dating back to 1991 have been violated by Saddam, there is already sufficient legal authority to sanction the use of force. This may have some merit in legal circles, but it has none in political or practical terms.”
July 3, 2004: “For many years, I have believed that the removal of Saddam Hussein was necessary to achieve stability in the Middle East – necessary, but not sufficient. While I supported President Bush on this issue, frankly, I am deeply distressed by the timing and the manner in which the policy was carried out. It weakened our position throughout the region, even though the Iraqi people and the world will be much better off without Saddam in the long run.
Oct. 24, 2006, op-ed in form of open letter to Bush: “I urge you to lay out realistic goals, redeploy our troops and focus on the search for a political solution.”
In short, considerably more nuanced than you acknowledged. Oh, I forgot: You don’t see nuance. Like a conservative, you see a black-and-white world.
Yeah, Holbrooke was “nuanced”.
“For many years, I have believed that the removal of Saddam Hussein was necessary to achieve stability in the Middle East – necessary, but not sufficient. While I supported President Bush on this issue, frankly, I am deeply distressed by the timing and the manner in which the policy was carried out.”
Holbrooke was not really opposed to the war in principle, he just “distressed by the timing and manner in which the ‘policy’ was carried out”.
If I actually believed you truly believed everything you write I’d put you on a suicide watch.