Just Shake Your Head
Richard Holbrooke informs us of what America, and the Bus administration, is doing wrong in the Middle East. Writing in the Washington Post, Holbrooke exclaims:
Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency. A chain reaction could spread quickly almost anywhere between Cairo and Bombay. Turkey is talking openly of invading northern Iraq to deal with Kurdish terrorists based there. Syria could easily get pulled into the war in southern Lebanon. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are under pressure from jihadists to support Hezbollah, even though the governments in Cairo and Riyadh hate that organization. Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of giving shelter to al-Qaeda and the Taliban; there is constant fighting on both sides of that border. NATO's own war in Afghanistan is not going well. India talks of taking punitive action against Pakistan for allegedly being behind the Bombay bombings. Uzbekistan is a repressive dictatorship with a growing Islamic resistance.
The only beneficiaries of this chaos are Iran, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr, who last week held the largest anti-American, anti-Israel demonstration in the world in the very heart of Baghdad, even as 6,000 additional U.S. troops were rushing into the city to "prevent" a civil war that has already begun.
There is of course one problem with Holbrooke's view. He is treating all of these events as independent, isolated events that just happen to be happening at the same time.
This guy was a highly placed American diplomat? And he has no clue about all these events? There is a common thread that Holbrooke kind of understood. Who are the beneficiaries?
Who is driving all of the events that Holbrooke sees as separate? Here's a clue, Mr. Holbrooke: these are not isolated incidents. Iran is driving all of these things. Every one of them. Iran and it's partners North Korea and now Hugo Chavez are pushing the world to the brink. But you see it as discreet elements rather than as a gestalt, Mr. Holbrooke.
Sadly, so do all too many people.
On the diplomatic front, the United States cannot abandon the field to other nations (not even France!) or the United Nations. Every secretary of state from Henry Kissinger to Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright negotiated with Syria, including those Republican icons George Shultz and James Baker. Why won't this administration follow suit, in full consultation with Israel at every step? This would clearly be in Israel's interest. Instead, administration officials refuse direct talks and say publicly, "Syria knows what it must do" — a statement that denies the very point of diplomacy.
The same is true of talks with Iran, although these would be more difficult. Why has the world's leading nation stood aside for over five years and allowed the international dialogue with Tehran to be conducted by Europeans, the Chinese and the United Nations? And why has that dialogue been restricted to the nuclear issue — vitally important, to be sure, but not as urgent at this moment as Iran's sponsorship and arming of Hezbollah and its support of actions against U.S. forces in Iraq?
Containing the violence must be Washington's first priority. Finding a stable and secure solution that protects Israel must follow. Then must come the unwinding of America's disastrous entanglement in Iraq in a manner that is not a complete humiliation and does not lead to even greater turmoil. All of this will take sustained high-level diplomacy — precisely what the American administration has avoided in the Middle East. Washington has, or at least used to have, leverage over the more moderate Arab states; it should use it again, in the closest consultation with and on behalf of Israel.
Holbrooke argues as if the US can unilaterally impose peace, while decrying the US failure to use dipolomacy more effectively. Kind of an awkward stance. Wasn't Holbrooke one of the people who decried American unilateralism? Just asking.
Frankly, Holbrooke has this all wrong.








