Richard Holbrooke Is The Wrong Man For The Job: Scott Ritter

CommonDreams.org:

It was early in October 2001, and I had been invited to New York City on behalf of The History Channel for a show in which I was to discuss the situation in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks. I was pitted against a seasoned American diplomat who had made his reputation negotiating peace accords in difficult corners of the world. I felt a little out of place, since my area of expertise was arms control and disarmament, and specifically how arms control was being implemented in Iraq. I had written a few scholarly articles about Afghan-Soviet relations, with a focus on the ethnic and tribal aspects of Afghan politics, and in the mid-1980s I had been an analyst with the Marine Corps component of the rapid deployment force, following very closely the Soviet war against the Afghan mujahedeen, so I wasn't totally out of my element.

Read the whole story: CommonDreams.org

Comments

[fayemac]

06:21 PM on 01/27/2009

I dont agree with anything he has said. The Taliban came from Pakistan not the other way around. They treat thier own people as stepping stones to get what they want. The women and children of Afganiatan deserve better than your solution to just keep the status quo and let them continue to throw acid in the faces of the children who want to become something better. Id seen a documentary on what Afganistan looked like before the Russians, Taliban ect. left thier mark on it. The women looked like they were happy, they had college degrees, had jobs, looked almost like the fifties here. The Taliban have pushed the country back to the stone age and you think thats good? Thank god Holbrook wont listen to you. I hope the Taliban get blown out of existance once and for all.

[separatingwheatfromchaff]

12:21 AM on 01/26/2009

Scott Ritter was right about a lot of things,including WMD.I read some of these posts saying he's inexperienced,doesn't understand diplomacy,doesn't know the Taliban wasn't a product of the Afghan people and wonder, where were all of you when he stood alone doing all he could to keep us out Iraq.Scott Ritters word is gold to me,I can't remember one incident where he was less than truthful about anything,ever.His diplomatic skills were available for all to see when he fought the Bush administration tooth and nail to stay out of Iraq.I consider him a true patriot and wish we had more like him in our diplomatic corp.

[Rog49Thomas]

11:49 PM on 01/25/2009

when one fails in achieving one's ends, it is some times quite useful to step back and reflect on the tactics and strategy employed rather than merely change personnel

so it is with our foreign policy in the middle east

it may be less a question of the skill or temperament of our "negotiators" than the fundamental course we have set

[Palemoon]

09:11 PM on 01/25/2009

I have alot of respect for both Mr. Ritter and Mr. Holbrooke. As for where I stand, is Mr. Holbrooke the right man for the job? I don't know, but at the moment I'm satisfied.

I do have some problems with Mr. Ritter's article. It's too narrow in focus as well as flawed. I'll pick out this one as an example...

"I responded by noting that it would not be an easy thing to separate the Taliban from Afghan society, since the Taliban was a product of Afghan society"

Mr. Ritter, the Taliban was formed and based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The Taliban, with help of the ISI and Pakistani military then went into Afghanistan to make it a puppet regime subordinate to Pakistan from 1996 until we drove them from power in 2001.

"Some, including leaders of the Bush administration, were making the case that the Taliban was directly implicated in the attacks since it had provided al-Qaida with a safe haven to plan the events of 9/11."

And those people were right. The reason that Northern Alliance leader Ahmed Shah Masood was assassinated on 9/9 was so that the US would be denied an important ally in the war that would start on 9/11. That assassination was a direct part of the planning for 9/11 and it's aftermath. The Taliban were as complicit as Osama himself.

[fayemac]

07:13 PM on 01/27/2009

My god somebody knows what happened there. Your right on everything. Masood was a good man who fought for his people, unlike the Taliban who fought for more power. I heard that the biggest problems that the Afgans face is not having the Koran published in the Afgan language so they have to believe what the Taliban(or mulahs?) tell them about thier faith. Case in point; that the women have to be covered at all times outside the house, no education for women, jihads ect. If that one simple problem could be taken care of, I think that would go a long way in stablizing the country. It helped the christian faith when the people finally got to read what the bible actuly said instead of powerfull clerics, that only wanted to keep thier power, told thier folowers. The education of Afganistan is priorty no. one. The death of the Taliban is a close no. 2. Getting rid of the poppy crop is no. 3

[Buffyboy]

08:10 PM on 01/25/2009

Scott Ritter is obviously the wrong man for HIS job.

[sandals]

06:27 PM on 01/25/2009

Again we can't please all sides with his choices, I trust this President more than any other in my lifetime.
He is willing to tell us the hard cold truth and we need to stop acting like children. Our President has this country's best interest at heart and also what is the better good for all.

[mizerello]

04:35 PM on 01/25/2009

I agree with many of the posters, or at least hope they are right, that Obama will be calling the shots and not Holbrooke. I also believe, sadly, that Holbrooke is someone who will go along to get along, as evidenced by his comments and actions following 911. He's a political animal, plain and simple. He was selected by Rahm Emanuel as another of the Clinton redux team. I have faith in President Obama to a point. However, if all we see is the same old political games being played by his team, he can count me out as one of his donors next election. I donated my entire IRA contribution to Obama and other Dem candidates this year, hoping for change. So far, my views on his cabinet choices are mixed. My sister keeps telling me to keep the faith and to give him a chance. I'll try. If the Dems disappoint me again, however, I'll change my registration and work hard to strengthen a third party next time around. I'm tired of politicians.

[motoGpifupleez]

02:39 PM on 01/25/2009

Scott Ritter again shows the insight of a man who has worked extensively in the area and having a good understanding of the people involved. He got it right when it came to the WMD in Iraq, didn't he? His reward for that? Being wrongly smeared by the Cheney/"W" team as a childpornographer as a pathetic attempt to discredit him. I would hope that President Obama would bring him into the fold as an experienced hand in Middle Eastern subtleties. One should also hope that Richard Holbrooke has has kept up with the goings on within the region and allowed himself to evolve in his thought processes.
I doubt we are ever going to find the "perfect" individual for every task, but I have considerably more faith in the Obama administration's ability to get closer to it than Cheney/"W" ever did.

[motley2]

08:16 PM on 01/25/2009

Agreed, nice post.
If the Prez thinks the "diplomatic troubleshooter" is up to the job, he probably is. Scott Ritter has made a habit of being right, but I hope he's wrong about Holbrooke as a "cheerleader".

[billw8017]

02:28 PM on 01/25/2009

When he was on the UN inspection team, Scott Ritter operated as a US agent and did a little espionage to the discredit of the UN inspectors. Speaking seriously, a US citizen who promotes US interests is not an altogether bad guy. Ritter still had a certain integrity. As the Iraq was impended, he spoke the truth about the WMD deception and was widely criticized for that. All of which is to say, Ritter knows his subject and tells the truth while trying to work with US interests.

Holbrooke was an important negotiator in the Clinton administration and directed the Dayton accords. The Dayton process has been criticized in some quarters as putting a nice face on a pre existing intention to break up Yugoslavia. The Dayton Accords led directly to NATO air strikes against Serbia.

Ritter, here, says Holbrooke will not conduct an honest negotiation in Afghanistan, but justify increasing severity in the Afghan war, a policy that cannot be altogether successful but may recoil against the reputation of the Obama administration.

I only hope we will kill Bin Laden and withdraw.

[Durango]

01:49 PM on 01/25/2009

Scott Ritter is a 100% genuine American hero.

He tried his best to prevent the fiasco of our invasion and occupation of Iraq. And he was correct on every issue he addressed.

So it would behoove us to pay attention to what he says here.

He was also correct in his analysis of the situation in Post 9/11 Afghanistan.

Scott Ritter is a great American. And a true patriot.. He should be listened to.

[NoCents]

02:09 PM on 01/25/2009

Well, OK. But why did we not give the Taliban our evidence that OBL did it. Why not guarantee a fair trial. Its our LAW. I remember this request on the TV. I remember Bush saying "they either a for us or against us". And "bombs burst in the aire"

And I am a genius? Delusion? Have good dreams? Or most people cannnot remember or choose to forget? They cannot read or search Google.

I think freedom and truth may take too much concentration and patience? Not dumb, LAZY.

Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do?

[Palmz]

12:54 PM on 01/25/2009

I am tired of:

Holbrooke is the wrong choice.

Clinton is the wrong choice.

Obama is the wrong choice.

At some point we need to stop listening to splinter groups with self interest and govern for the greater good of all the people. i voted for this President because i trust his judgment.

End of story.

[RedDogBear]

02:07 PM on 01/25/2009

So we should all just stop criticizing Obama and have absolute faith in him? Sorry, that may be the way republicans work but its not the way a democracy is supposed to function. I voted for Obama and did volunteer work for him but I think its essential that we critique his decisions. I think he has done an excellent job so far but I welcome reasoned debate. Scott Ritter was one of the few people who was saying that there were no WMD's in Iraq well before the war started. He is someone worth listening to.

[JPHR]

12:39 PM on 01/25/2009

Holbrooke will have to cooperate with Russia. However the peace he brokered in Kosovo has been a rather one sided dictate in the view of the Russians. Holbrooke has been part of the Clinton administration foreign policy team. In fact Clinton broke the promise to Gorbachev not to extent influence and Nato to the east.

By now most people accept that Georgia initiated the attack on the Ossetia region, which had been under a Cis/Russia peacekeeping mission practically since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991 till 2008.

Quite revealing is Holbrooke's quick reaction. He is in fact completely siding with the Bush administration propaganda version of the facts. Holbrooke even more or less states that he is not even interested in the facts. Holbrooke apparently felt the US interests well served with neocon policies

Read:
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/369767.html

"Russia crossed the line"

It is an illusion to think that without Russia peace in Afghanistan is even possible. That peace is also in Russia's interest because on their side of the border the population shares some of the ethnic religious background. Question is whether Holbrooke will be considered a credible partner. Please note that Russia has been seeking cooperation, but has also been rightfully complaining of the US unilateralism/polarism and disregard for international law. To them Holbrooke is an exponent of exactly that kind of unilateralism, which has proven himself also quite prejudiced with respect to Russia too.

[billw8017]

02:44 PM on 01/25/2009

Russia's interest is to expand its authority in the former Soviet states of central Asia. It the United States fails or even causes unnecessary suffering in Afghanistan, Russia gains. Does anybody here believe that expanding NATO to the Russian borders and building missile stations in eastern Europe is regarded as friendly in Moscow?

Holbrooke will push the bounds of American Empire as far as they will go. Then, he will seek to harden the status quo so as to fix the basis of business negotiations. Nothing else concerns any Americans. Ranchers in Montana can be taught to despise Muslim radicals, but this has nothing to do with the price of beef in Kansas City.

[theone718]

11:25 AM on 01/25/2009

This article makes me ask an interesting question. WHERE THE F*CK IS WESLEY CLARK!?!?!?!?!?

[Jesster]

12:04 PM on 01/25/2009

We been wondering the very same thing. As I recall he was a Hillary supporter - although as SoS she doesn't seem to be in any hurry to tap his knowledge and/or experience. Does anyone know what the story is here?

[blueskybigstar]

12:35 PM on 01/25/2009

Wesley Clark is too bluntly honest to deal with Hillary for very long. Obama does not like people who are straight talkers.

[steamboat]

05:21 PM on 01/25/2009

I honestly feel he's is being out-casted because he was a overwhelming Hillary-backer.

[theone718]

11:21 AM on 01/25/2009

Actually General Patreaus and Obama have both said they MUST talk with the moderate Taliban to truly be able to stomp out the AQ. Obama is choosing the policy, Holbrooke will be implementing it. His experience will be much needed to implement Obama's policy which is to convince the moderate Taliban to fight against AQ, sort of like what happened in Iraq. That is the only way to true success in the region.

[usedtowander]

11:15 AM on 01/25/2009

Mr. Ritter couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Holbrooke's job, as with any envoy, is to execute on the President's intent. He may advise before decisions are made, but he may not free lance.

As Colin Powell puts it, “When we are debating an issue, loyalty means giving me your honest opinion, whether you think I'll like it or not. Disagreement, at this stage, stimulates me. But once a decision has been made, the debate ends. From that point on, loyalty means executing the decision as if it were your own."

During the transition period, then President-Elect Obama repeated this mantra, "There is only one President at a time."

[victoria38]

11:54 AM on 01/25/2009

Ironic that you quote Powell, one of the most disloyal people around...ask McCain..

[Jesster]

12:11 PM on 01/25/2009

I find it so weird when people think that public servants who are paid by us taxpayers are supposed to be only loyal to one person or one party. HUH?

Recall the woman at the Justice Department who told a dumbfounded Congressional commit that she took an oath to be loyal... To George Bush!

Don't these people (your scary idea of loyal folks) actually read an oath before they take one?

[Jaxy]

01:24 PM on 01/25/2009

General Colin Powell is not "one of the most disloyal people around".

He is a widely-respected man whose credibility was devastated by his act of repeating to the public the same deceptive Iraq "intelligence" that he had been fed by the previous Administration.

General Powell is a person of good conscience, and when he saw McCain and Palin creating a racially-explosive situation via their campaign, he spoke up against it. As did several other smart and well-intentioned Republicans.

BTW, speaking of irony, you may wish to ask Carol McCain what her thoughts are on the loyalty, vel non, of John McCain.