No egg on face here in Punditaland re Holbrooke's last words

At 7:50 PM ET The Washington Post published something close to a retraction regarding their report late last night that described Richard Holbrooke's last words. The first report:

As Mr. Holbrooke was sedated for surgery, family members said, his final words were to his Pakistani surgeon: "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan."

Tonight's clarification from the Post:

[...] But Tuesday, a fuller account of the tone and contents of his remarks emerged.

As physician Jehan El-Bayoumi was attending to Holbrooke in the emergency room at George Washington University Hospital, she told him to relax and asked what she could do to comfort him, according to an aide who was present.

Holbrooke, who was in severe pain, said jokingly that it was hard to relax because he had to worry about the difficult situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

El-Bayoumi, an Egyptian American internist who is Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's physician, replied that she would worry for him. Holbrooke responded by telling her to end the war, the aide said.

The aide said he could not be sure of Holbrooke's exact words. He emphasized Tuesday that the comment was made in painful banter, rather than as a serious exhortation about policy.

Holbrooke also spoke extensively about his family and friends as he awaited surgery by Farzad Najam, a thoracic surgeon of Pakistani descent. [...]

Tonight's report goes on to mention that the first version of Holbrooke's last words was seized on by critics of the Afghan War and interpreted differently by different people.

I made no attempt to interpret his words when I posted the first report, observing sagely that Holbrooke "took to his grave exactly what he meant by his last words, which could be read in different ways." I then turned to a discussion of a point about Holbrooke's approach to Pakistan that was well-established.

I will not labor the obvious by detailing parables that could be wrung from the tale of those who used the words of a dying man to serve their own ends. Except to note that 99.9 percent of Afghan War analysts are idiots.

The last words of Richard Holbrooke

UPDATE 8:10 PM ET
At 7:50 PM The Washington Post published something close to a retraction regarding their report last night that mentioned Holbrooke's last words:

[...] After Holbrooke's death Monday, The Washington Post, citing his family members, reported that the veteran diplomat had told his physician just before surgery Friday to "stop this war."

But Tuesday, a fuller account of the tone and contents of his remarks emerged.

As physician Jehan El-Bayoumi was attending to Holbrooke in the emergency room at George Washington University Hospital, she told him to relax and asked what she could do to comfort him, according to an aide who was present.

Holbrooke, who was in severe pain, said jokingly that it was hard to relax because he had to worry about the difficult situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

El-Bayoumi, an Egyptian American internist who is Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's physician, replied that she would worry for him. Holbrooke responded by telling her to end the war, the aide said.

The aide said he could not be sure of Holbrooke's exact words. He emphasized Tuesday that the comment was made in painful banter, rather than as a serious exhortation about policy.

Holbrooke also spoke extensively about his family and friends as he awaited surgery by Farzad Najam, a thoracic surgeon of Pakistani descent. [...]

The report goes on to mention that the first version of his words was interpreted differently by different critics of the war.

However, we here in Punditaland were cagey about what he might have meant; rather than ruminate about the unknown we chose to discuss a point that was well-established. Now on to the original post:
******

As Mr. Holbrooke was sedated for surgery, family members said, his final words were to his Pakistani surgeon: "You've got to stop this war in Afghanistan."

The quote is from The Washington's Post's obituary for Richard Holbrooke, who took to his grave exactly what he meant by his last words, which could be read in different ways.

What is known for certain is that he pursued a fallacy in that he believed U.S. aid to Pakistan, correctly applied, would give the United States significant leverage with Pakistan's regime. This is a very Western view and one that shows no understanding of the thinking of Pakistan's rulers. Amrullah Saleh does understand the thinking, which is why he has pointed out that the aid only reinforces the regime's bad behavior.

Why is this point so hard for Westerners to understand? Because they can't conceive of a mindset in which the qualities the West considers those of a good leader, such as honesty and truthfulness, are considered in Pakistan to be the qualities of a good house servant.

The larger point is not rooted in culture or history but in the shrewdness of human nature: If you think my behavior is so wrong, why do you keep giving to me?

By all accounts Richard Holbrooke could not be bullied or bought and he was a genuinely good man, as this passage from The New York Times obituary for him underscores:

Foreign policy was his life. Even during Republican administrations, when he was not in government, he was deeply engaged, undertaking missions as a private citizen traveling through the war-weary Balkans and the backwaters of Africa and Asia to see firsthand the damage and devastating human costs of genocide, civil wars and H.I.V. and AIDS epidemics.

Yet it is a baseline fact of human existence that in the short term -- and all humans live in the short term -- life rewards wisdom more than goodness, perhaps on the theory that few things are more dangerous than a good-hearted fool.

Richard Holbrooke's surgery: Once again the hand of fate intervenes in Afghan War, and the tale of a matchmaker and the attention-deficit client

UPDATE
From Reuters report 8 PM ET: Holbrooke, 69 years old, underwent another procedure on Sunday to improve his circulation and remains in critical condition, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in a statement.
*************

The matchmaker (with Cupid's bow and arrow)

The Associated Press reported this morning that Richard Holbrooke, special U.S. envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan, is in stable but critical condition after more than 20 hours of surgery to repair a torn aorta. The report also mentioned that even if the recovery goes well it is likely it will be a lengthy process. As to how this will affect the Afghan war situation, from the report:

[...] Holbrooke's illness comes just days before the Obama administration is expected to roll out the results of its review of the Afghanistan war next Thursday. His illness is unlikely to result in any changes in that review in which the diplomat has played an integral role.
[...]
But Holbrooke's prolonged absence could have an impact on the administration's ability to implement — and also sell to a skeptical Congress — its push for Afghan forces to assume a greater role in the fighting, allowing U.S. troops to come home. It is a transition in which Holbrooke was expected to play an important part, since he has made many visits to the region and developed personal relationships with leaders in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
[...]

I am thinking back to the eruption of a volcano in Iceland and how in a way no one could have foreseen this changed the course of the war in Afghanistan. If not for an ash cloud from the volcano that hovered over Western Europe's airports it's likely that Gen. Stanley McChrystal would be still be in command of ISAF.

One might argue that Gen. David Petraeus has only continued the counterinsurgency plan that McChrystal was carrying out but Petraeus can do what McChrystal couldn't, which is to change his mind about facts on the ground and make sweeping changes in response. Already Petraeus has added several counterterrorism tactics to the POPCOIN (population-centric counterinsurgency or COIN) plan and he won't hesitate to keep adjusting tactics and even allover strategy in the effort to pull a win out of Afghanistan.

As for Holbrooke, Petraeus has referred to him as his 'wingman.' But despite Holbrooke's vast experience as a negotiator, I think it's been terribly unhelpful to have a wingman who confuses South Asia with Eastern Europe and Afghanistan with Bosnia. Perhaps a lengthy recovery period or retirement for Holbrooke will cause Petraeus to cast around for a wingman who sees Pakistan as Pakistan and Afghanistan as Afghanistan. Now that would be progress. As to where we are now: in the same rut we've been in for years. At the end of July, in the wake of the first round of leaked Wikileaks documents, Ahmed Rashid reported for the (U.K.) Spectator what was already plain as day:

[...] A few months ago Hamid Karzai would have been thrilled to have confirmation that American officers are speaking openly about how divisions of Pakistani intelligence are helping the Taleban. But after spending eight years criticising the ISI, he recently decided to cosy up to them.

Karzai seems to have given up on the ability of the Americans, the Brits and Nato either to defeat the Taleban or even to talk to them. This is why he has turned to Pakistan and Iran: his own freelance attempt to try to broker a ceasefire with the Taleban which would involve a power-sharing deal.[...]

I disagree with this view. From all I've seen I think it was initially Western European governments in NATO, with the USA eventually joining in, which put pressure on Karzai to open up negotiations with the Taliban; when he didn't move in that direction strongly enough some NATO governments took matters into their own hands. Recall the secret British deal to set up Taliban training camps that Karzai's security force uncovered.

But Rashid is correct in that by this year Karzai had put more effort into forging better relations with Pakistan -- as if he had choice when confronted with the threat of the U.S. quitting Afghanistan in 2011.

Rashid was also on the money in his summation of Asfaq Kayani's role in the situation:

These [Wikileaks] leaks are highly embarrassing for Pakistan’s President, Asif Zardari, who has just cravenly given in to the army and awarded a three-year extension to its chief, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani. [Kiyani] ran the ISI between late 2004 and 2007 and had been director of its military operations before that. Both jobs involved helping and sustaining the Taleban in exile in Pakistan, and facilitating their revival in 2004-05.

It was Kiyani who formulated the policy that is criticised in the leaks: giving the Taleban sanctuary and support. The last thing Zardari wants is a forced confrontation with the army over these leaks.

Kiyani is now the most powerful man in Pakistan and will remain army chief until 2013. His aim is for the Americans, the Brits and the Afghans to open talks with Taleban leaders — who are all in Pakistan and over whom the ISI has a great deal of influence and control. In return, Kiyani wants to make sure that the ISI brokers any such talks — and is able to advance its own national security interests. At the top if its wish list is securing a pro-Pakistan government in Kabul, and ending what he regards as too much Indian influence in Afghanistan. This is why the leaked emails [published by Wikileaks] come at a bad time for Kiyani: the last thing he needs right now is any embarrassment about his role, or that of the ISI, in the past.

Kayani needn't have worried about being embarrassed because Richard Holbrooke ably covered for him in public as did Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. As to whether Holbrooke did the same in private discussions: no one held a gun to his head to make him forcefully represent in public a policy toward Pakistan that was suicidal for ISAF forces and a death knell for Afghanistan. So whatever he said in private is beside the point.

The great tragedy is that NATO's view, backed to the hilt by Mullen and rubber-stamped by the Obama administration and Holbrooke, made it impossible for any intelligent assessment to gain ground on how the U.S. should deal with Pakistan.

But that's because the Afghan War is the ADD war; I was reminded of that the other night when I caught an episode of Bravo TV's reality show Millionaire Matchmaker. The show is about a third-generation matchmaker (Patti Stanger) who along with her team of assistants makes matches for millionaires who have everything in life except a spouse. I don't follow the show as much as I'd like to find time for, but every time I've seen it I have been regaled and instructed by the matchmaker's shrewd observations about her picky clients.

The girl (or guy, in the case of a female millionaire) of the millionaires' dreams turns out not to exist for many of the clients simply because no sane person except a gold-digger would date them more than once, let alone marry them. Thus, the delight of the show is Stanger's attempts to help jerks transform themselves into dating material.

One such client was described by the matchmaker's assistant as having ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) as they settled in to study the video he made to introduce himself to Stanger.

When the matchmaker said at first that she didn't see the ADD, the assistant replied, "Wait."

It wasn't a long wait. The man seeking help was unable to focus on his request or on anything outside his business -- his attention split between his Blackberry and laptop.

Happily he was desperate for a good mate, so desperate that he took the matchmaker's advice to put away all the tools of his trade while on a date and focus on the girl. With his attention thus gathered he turned out to be an engaging date.

Would that for a few weeks the matchmaker could take charge of those in charge of the Afghan War. I feel sure she would find a way to get across to even the most scattered brains that it's not possible to win a war if it's always seen as something else; if every tactic is filtered through a geopolitical situation that is not centered in Afghanistan.

Mr Holbrooke, you're supposed to be working for the USA

Don't worry, Pakistan! I, Richard Holbrooke, will save you!

"Here lizard lizard lizard"

It's only natural for people to see their work as important and for the Type A's among us to attempt to expand their job description. But Richard Holbrooke's Godzilla-sized ego is now a serious problem for the ISAF war effort in Afghanistan, and for Afghans fighting the tyranny of Pakistan's proxy terrorist groups.

I know that General Petraeus has called Mr Holbrooke his 'wing man,' but perhaps they can perform their flying act somewhere less dangerous, like in the middle of Ohio:

Afghans Blast Pakistan Over Insurgent Fight
By Yaroslav Trofimov and Maria Abi-Habib
The Wall Street Journal, October 27

KABUL — Senior Afghan officials pressed the U.S. at a closed-door strategy session to force Pakistan to crack down on insurgents on its territory, saying recent military gains will be short-lived as long as these havens remain across the border.

"If we do not get rid of them, we're just wasting time, lives and money," Afghan national security adviser Rangin Dadfar Spanta told the two-day conference that ended Wednesday, according to some participants. Mr. Spanta's aide confirmed the comments.
[...]
The Kabul meeting, known as the Rehearsal of Concept Drill, was aimed at coordinating the war effort for the coming year.

It convened as coalition and Afghan troops advanced in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar province. The U.S.-led military coalition told the conference that the insurgency in Afghanistan "has lost its momentum" because of recent allied operations, but remains "resilient," according to some participants.

The meeting brought together senior officials from the U.S., Afghanistan and Western nations. It was attended by U.S. special representative Richard Holbrooke, coalition forces commander Gen. David Petraeus and President Barack Obama's special assistant for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute.

American officials agreed with their Afghan counterparts that the insurgents' ability to regroup in Pakistan, especially the tribal area of North Waziristan, poses a serious challenge to the war effort.

The Obama administration has been pressing Islamabad to act there, and has told Pakistan that some funding could be in jeopardy if it doesn't move against the insurgents.

But, at the Kabul session, Mr. Holbrooke pushed back against Mr. Spanta's suggestion for the U.S. to threaten Pakistan with a cutoff in billions of dollars of American aid.

According to a U.S. official present, Mr. Holbrooke said the Pakistani government is focused on dealing with the aftermath of devastating floods there, and that the U.S. expects Islamabad will soon switch its focus to the insurgency. Pakistani officials have said their military is already overstretched, and that an offensive in North Waziristan could lead to a new wave of retaliatory terrorist attacks in Pakistani cities.

"Pakistan needs to be part of the solution, not part of the problem," Mr. Holbrooke said. "We will not achieve peace and stability in Afghanistan until Pakistan plays a positive and contributive role here."
[...]

Pakistan is the problem, you insufferable twit, and you have no business trying to ram Pakistan down Afghan throats.

Holbrooke is mindlessly parroting Pakistan's Prime Minister, who says what he's told to say by Pakistan's military. But Holbrook is not bothering to listen to other opinion in Pakistan on the matter of the Pakistani military's meddling in Afghanistan, and yet he should listen -- or more to the point, the U.S. military and the Obama administration should.

Gilani's remarks disrespect for Afghan sovereignty: Pakistani nationalists
By tullah Kharotai
Pajhwok via e-Ariana
10/14/2010

QUETTA - Some Pakistani nationalist politicians say that Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani's recent remarks about the ongoing peace process in Afghanistan were tantamount to an attack and disrespect for the sovereignty of that country.

In a televised interview on Tuesday, Gilani said without Pakistan's help, the peace talks between the Afghan government and Taliban were useless.

He said his country would be part of the process. "Look, nothing can happen without us because we are part of the solution. We are not part of the problem," the prime minister said.

His remarks came after President Hamid Karzai confirmed "unofficial contacts" were in place with the Taliban to bring them back to a normal life.

Wednesday was the first official working day for the long-awaited 70-member high peace council aimed at holding talks with Taliban and other armed opposition groups and bringing them into the national mainstream. However, the Taliban deny Karzai's claim of contacts with them.

Osman Kakar, the leader of the Awami National Party in Pakistan's Balochistan province, told Pajhwok Afghan News that Pakistan and its intelligence agencies had been interfering in Afghanistan's internal issues over the past three decades.

He said Pakistani government officials had no right to intervene into Afghanistan. He warned the country would never realistically work for the betterment of Afghanistan.

Kakar said Gilani's remarks proved the allegations that Pakistan had long been interfering in Afghanistan.

An influential figure, Malik Aman Kasi, believes that Pakistan sees its stability in a destabilised Afghanistan. He said Afghanistan was an independent country and can take any step it sees suitable under its social conditions.

A political analyst, Shamsuddin, says that if Pakistan is given any role in the Afghan-initiated peace process, the country would work to spoil the efforts instead of making it a success.

However, provincial secretary of the Awami National Party in Balochistan, Arbab Zahir Kasi, come up with a different opinion. He said that Pakistan should have been given a role in peace talks with the Taliban because of the country's good relations with the Taliban.

He said Pakistan could play its bit to convince the Taliban to arrive at the negotiating table.

However, he did not rule out Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan and training Taliban on its soil and then sending them to sabotage security in neighbouring Afghanistan.