dagblog - Comments for "The Inside Story of How the White House Let Diplomacy Fail in Afghanistan"

Yeah, but Afghanistan ate

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 01:18:06 +0000

In reply to The mess war hasn't hurt her

Yeah, but Afghanistan ate McChrystal's career. Benghazi crippled Susan Rice and what she said was true and full of enough nuance. In any case, my point was simply that politics is full of superstars and egos, and bashing Holbrooke for it is kinda ho-hum, like a "politician in sex scandal" or "priest found with young boy" headline.

The mess war hasn't hurt her

Aaron Carine — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:01:38 +0000

In reply to Let's start with the dumbest

The mess war hasn't hurt her prospects because neither mess war started on her watch, and the Afghan war was defensive.

Some background on our drone

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 19:25:31 +0000

In reply to I don't see that Hunter adds

Some background on our drone & CIA efforts in Pakistan during this time & before (yes, it preceded Obama) - way too much spookdom & ourwayorhighwayism.

It is quite a different thing

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 07:36:46 +0000

In reply to I don't see that Hunter adds

It is quite a different thing for Nasr to claim that Holbrooke's ideas, if instituted, would have worked and everything would be much better now. That is an unsupportable claim

Since I haven't read it, I can't state definitively - but since Nasr points out that one possible Holbrooke breakthrough was an unknown idea he woke up with that he didn't even share with his wife, he'd be foolish to claim that all his ideas would have worked.

What I seem to feel is everyone's upset that Nasr doesn't say every 3rd sentence, "but I may be wrong". Petraeus never had to question himself, but it's up to Nasr to be balanced and reflect all possibilities in his writing.

Just the clip from this diary reminds me of something I heard from the Bush years - that they were running everything through the political wing of the White House, marginalizing the policy side. As Obama has continued so much from the Bush years, it seems extremely likely that this is another inheritance - young political punks overriding field efforts to get the right spin in domestic polls, or just thinking they know better.

It was well known that many in Obama's team hate Hillary and thus anyone under her. It was thought by many that SoS was to marginalize her and keep her from running in 2012 - similar to Petraeus' appointment - and there were clues when Hillary's choice for underlings were overridden. Obama now has a history of putting people in place and letting weeds grow around them - the Gitmo-closing committee quietly disbanded earlier this year, both Elizabeth Warren and Dawn Johnsen were victims of his unwillingness to push what were thrilling choices for liberals, even Susan Rice was hung out to dry unjustly on Benghazi, Patti Solis Doyle was made "chief of staff for VP" in Obama campaign after she screwed up the financing for Hillary - only to disappear once the point/insult had been made.

So I'm entirely comfortable with the idea that Holbrooke was left in place to show that Obama wouldn't repeat the Clinton years, that he'd do it better with a different approach even as Holbrooke looked on, or some other petty vengeful message supported by some in his inner circle.

But back to Holbrooke's ideas - I think even you said the one Afghan or Pakistani leader summarized it best, that giving away the date of leaving and asking everyone to work together until then was doomed to failure - that you had to get buy-in at your peak, not before you showed your cards. I wasn't for the surge, but I can still imagine an "I'm leaving, but I'd still like to tell you what to do" message wouldn't succeed.

I don't see that Hunter adds

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 03:22:14 +0000

In reply to Let's start with the dumbest

I don't see that Hunter adds much of anything about the book that the excerpt hadn't already revealed. He probably is a pretentious ass, at least I wouldn't bet against it, but the one partial sentence you quoted wouldn't look quite the same if you had also included the first half of the statement.

"... that someone who voluntarily “takes the King’s shilling” implicitly assumes a burden of not telling tales out of school, at least not until all the senior players have left the stage", was the second half. The entire sentence reads:

"So far, so good. But there are some other facets of this book, which, while not reducing the author’s valuable insights listed above, at least present a somewhat different perspective. One might be a quibble on the part of an “old school” approach to government service: that someone who voluntarily “takes the King’s shilling” implicitly assumes a burden of not telling tales out of school, at least not until all the senior players have left the stage""

I see his reference to "the old school" way as approximately synonymous with the long abandoned idea that politics stop at the water's edge, or in this case, until the scene has played out the way the boss chose. And, Humter did call it a minor quibble. That is not to say that I think Nasr should have kept quiet for a few years as Hunter seems to suggest. I agree completely that we should get information and analysis when the subject is still in play.

the apparent assumption running throughout the book that...a greater reliance on diplomacy and giving free rein to diplomatic approaches by... Ambassador Holbrooke ... then very different, positive things would have resulted. This would be a reach in regard to any region of the world.

I think you know that I am for diplomacy before militarism. I am not suggesting Nasr was wrong to stress the need for more and better diplomacy and never argued that his analysis of Obama's policies was wrong. But, it is one thing to say, absolutely correctly IMO, that diplomacy should be emphasized to a much greater degree. It is quite a different thing for Nasr to claim that Holbrooke's ideas, if instituted, would have worked and everything would be much better now. That is an unsupportable claim and that is the point Hunter was making in the above quote. Maybe Holbrooke's plan was great but maybe it wasn't, maybe it would have failed while there was some other diplomatic course of action that would have worked. Maybe we cannot make Afghanistan and Pakistan bend to our wishes through diplomacy or through strength of arms. We know what a cluster fuck the policies actually put into place produced and that is about all we can know for sure, any belief about the ones never tried is pure speculation.
That's, uh, about, uh, all, uh I got, uh, until I actually read the book, [Axelrod is really a jerk in that video] which I don't expect to do, or until more is written about it in short form, so I still don't know anything about Nasr's prescriptions other than he said there was a great plan, but maybe Hunter is right in his generous conclusion when he says,

"Whether Dr. Nasr is right on both his analysis and his prescriptions will now be hotly debated. In any case, Dispensable Nation has emerged as valuable evidence supporting one important point of view."

Let's start with the dumbest

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:28:26 +0000

In reply to The book has now been

Let's start with the dumbest one:

that someone who voluntarily “takes the King’s shilling” implicitly assumes a burden of not telling tales out of school, at least not until all the senior players have left the stage. Of course, breaking with that unwritten practice makes for a juicier read, but also leads one to ponder.

What a pretentious jackass. First, the "King's shilling" is ours, dammit - Obama ain't king. No, we shouldn't have to wait 4 more years for an insider's accounting, when it will do absolutely no good. No room for timely criticism anymore, especially about an administration that's classified everything even from Congress?

the apparent assumption running throughout the book that...a greater reliance on diplomacy and giving free rein to diplomatic approaches by... Ambassador Holbrooke ... then very different, positive things would have resulted. This would be a reach in regard to any region of the world.

Well, I haven't read the book, but no, it's not a reach - we've abandoned diplomacy and decided on threats, ass beatings and shaming as our foreign toolkit. Is there anyone who's ever responded positively to these methods from kindergarten on? Look at Yemen, where our ambassador goes on air and makes proclamations as if he's head of state. Wow, winning hearts and minds. Bagram as black hole prison site for torture just outside of Kabul - drone attacks on wedding feasts - the surge that accomplished little (certainly not training Afghani policemen)...

Add to this the appointment of a special representative for AfPak who had achieved almost superstar status,

Vs. a superstar president, superstar Petraeus (oops, guess won't run for president now), superstar McChrystal (guess he was feeling his oats when he gave that Rolling Stone interview...), superstar Secretary of State (cool shades, tweeting on that plane - her presidential stakes still alive despite a mess war), and superstar backseat driver self-inflated John McCain. Of all the bitchy little asides, that Holbrooke was too much a superstar among the restrained likes of Rahm Emanuel, well, it breaks my starry heart. Hear's superstar David Axelrod professing all the optimistic goals for surging while promising withdraw 6 months later - when Wolf Blitzer comes across insightful, you're doing pretty poorly, and please tell me what obvious questions Blitzer asked that aren't rather part of Nasr's basic gripe that this was all dones as a basic exercise of winning hearts and minds through troop movements, not diplomacy and building institutions and a real economy?

http://videos.mediaite.com/video/David-Axelrod-Has-An-Attack-Of

The book has now been

A Guy Called LULU — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 18:03:57 +0000

In reply to The Inside Story of How the White House Let Diplomacy Fail in Afghanistan

The book has now been reviewed by Robert E. Hunter.

What Nasr says about the way in which the White House controlled foreign policy in Obama’s first term and made it highly subservient to domestic politics, at times thereby neglecting critical foreign interests, is a damning indictment – even if only partly true, and at this point in history, no outsider can judge. Nasr is not the only one to argue a similar thesis, but it is the first to be made, as far as this reviewer is aware, by someone as intimately involved in at least one major element of US policy implementation.

So far, so good. But there are some other facets of this book, which, while not reducing the author’s valuable insights listed above, at least present a somewhat different perspective. One might be a quibble on the part of an “old school” approach to government service: that someone who voluntarily “takes the King’s shilling” implicitly assumes a burden of not telling tales out of school, at least not until all the senior players have left the stage. Of course, breaking with that unwritten practice makes for a juicier read, but also leads one to ponder.

A more serious question is raised by the apparent assumption running throughout the book that, if a different approach had been taken to X or Y — in particular a greater reliance on diplomacy and giving free rein to diplomatic approaches advanced by the Special Representative, Ambassador Holbrooke (who appears in Dispensable Nation to have been the lead character of an “inside the Beltway” morality play), then very different, positive things would have resulted. This would be a reach in regard to any region of the world.

Add to this the appointment of a special representative for AfPak who had achieved almost superstar status, with personal ambitions to match and a well-deserved sobriquet of “bulldozer,” and it would be surprising if all had gone smoothly within the US government — not least because Amb. Holbrooke, the hero of Dispensable Nation, had no experience in the region and no prior knowledge of the issues or the local political cultures. Indeed, it did not go smoothly, predictably so given Amb. Holbrooke’s career-long disdain for anyone who got in his way (along with his methods for eliminating competitors for either position or limelight), his lack of capacity for genuine strategic thinking as opposed to short-term tactical fixes, and his most undiplomatic approach to friend and foe.

Whether Dr. Nasr is right on both his analysis and his prescriptions will now be hotly debated. In any case, Dispensable Nation has emerged as valuable evidence supporting one important point of view.

Read the full review here and form your own opinion on Hunter's opinion of Dr. Nasr's opinion regarding Holbrooke's opinions. Then wait with bated breath for the next differing opinion piece on the same book which will no doubt appear soon.

http://www.lobelog.com/afpak-insider-dissects-obamas-policy-missteps/

Ok, refs to Obama were about

Anonymous PP — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:38:31 +0000

In reply to Your guess that Nasr praises

Ok, refs to Obama were about Nasr's point of view, not about you & your opinion.

I'm still not understanding what you're criticizing about Nasr's pot-calling-kettle-black when we agree about most of what he said & we said and....

So yeah, time to leave it. Next topic...

Your guess that Nasr praises

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 05:57:22 +0000

In reply to Funny, you're calculating

Your guess that Nasr praises Hillary because he wants a position is a little bit dumb, no?
I don't know, maybe, but look at the question I was answering. It might be dumb to expect the particulars of my suggestion to be in play, but in the greater picture I stand by what I said as an example which answers the question.
Just as I chose to criticize what Nasr said, you have chosen to dissect that criticism. That's obviously fair and I most always appreciate the information and views along with the attitude you bring to your comments, but what is the point of once again throwing Obama up at me? I am not defending Obama against any charge that Nasr made. I have said from the beginning and then over and over that I thought his charges were probably true. I have agreed with what you say about Obama. I have said most if not all those things myself at other times. For me, this topic has never been about Obama. Or Clinton. I have been talking about Nasr and the nature and the tone of his article.
Did Obama's team play it for politics? Of course, isn't it obvious? Did they hold spiteful grudges? Well duh,...

Yeah, duh. It's a bit frustrating continually agreeing with you so much considering that I am doing so in the act of defending my position. But now, using your terms, I will suggest once again that if we are attempting to critically read what Nasr says about Obama's team holding spiteful grudges, especially if we believe that these things actually do have an affect on political actions, we might see evidence that he holds some spiteful grudges himself.

AA is suggesting that by having a point of view Nasr obviates his right to speak in your eyes. Does everyone run this gauntlet?
Rather than what you see AA as suggesting, I would rather deal with what I actually did suggest. About the harshest suggestion I made about Nasr is that he engaged in a pot-calling-the -kettle-black form of criticizing Obama and his inner circle and pointing out the obvious which is that Nasr does have a point of view which is at least partially formed by having been on the losing team. That maybe gets us back to spiteful grudges if we want to hang that derisive a term on it and then consider why Nasr says his team lost. But seriously, what have I said that suggests that I do not think Nasr has the right to speak?
Over and out for now.

Funny, you're calculating

Anonymous PP — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 01:38:49 +0000

In reply to I only have disagreement with

Funny, you're calculating while Nasr is just open. He likes Holbrooke, he likes Hillary, he reports it as it played out. Did Obama's team play it for politics? Of course, isn't it obvious? Did they hold spiteful grudges? Well duh, remember June 2008 when it was beyond the pale that Hillary might demand anything in return for support (unlike say John Edwards or Bill Richardson)? Your guess that Nasr praises Hillary because he wants a position is a little bit dumb, no? Don't enough people like her? (I liked her, but I'm enough sick of her either carrying Obama's water or just taking the tough cop/soft cop routine too far without the soft cop ever appearing)

Wasn't it Obama who uttered "likeable enough" and "sweetie"? Have you ever noticed he spends a lot more time with Republicans than Democrats?

AA is suggesting that by having a point of view Nasr obviates his right to speak in your eyes. Does everyone run this gauntlet?

As far as Hillary goes, I think the chances that she'll be healthy enough to run in 4 years much less serve the following 8 are quite slim, and the chance that voters will elect on that chance are slimmer. A female elected and inaugurated at 69? Can we talk?

Aside from Hillary playing more world scourge & cop, perhaps one paper gets it right that she provides the US a bit of cover as fun and serious, worth dealing with. Other than that, I don't get it.