Holbrooke Moves
So this is just gossip. But I wonder what it means? From multiple sources of extremely high reliability. Soon after Hillary takes office she's getting briefed by senior staff. Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, which includes India and Pakistan, is giving his presentation. Holbrooke, not expected to be in the meeting, storms in, sits down, and listens to Boucher. Bear in mind that Boucher has been around the block; he was Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs in my time, is a long serving, very high-ranking senior career diplomat, a real apparatchik. After a few minutes Holbrooke interrupts Boucher, reams him out thoroughly. Very thoroughly. "Either you get on the bus or you'll be under the bus." Hillary says nothing. A couple minutes later Holbrooke storms out, slamming the door. I haven't heard what, in a substantive sense, set Holbrooke off. This puzzles me.
It's a separate question as to how Holbrooke seems to be taking over the State Department, placing his people all over and sticking his fingers in various pies. That's interesting, too, but what about trashing Boucher, in front of Hillary, with nary a peep out of her?
The only thing I can guess is that Boucher, in a pedestrian, workmanlike fashion — very much "Boucher-like" in my experience — was passing up the line the accumulated State Department wisdom as to how to stabilize Pakistan. Exactly the opposite of what Holbrooke wants. At this point my working hypothesis is that Holbrooke is engineering a sequence of events starting with a military coup, with the objective of producing a partial fracturing of Pakistan, just enough for U.S. troops in Afghanistan conveniently to sweep across the border into Balochistan. Why? Because, as Pepe Escobar points out, Balochistan is an "ultimate prize." I differ with Pepe in thinking that U.S. forces can't just waltz in without some kind of cover. And I'm somewhat gobsmacked that Holbrooke would play so fast and loose with Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. But, for now, I can't think of any other explanation.
Does Mr. Obama understand what his national security apparatus may be setting up? That's another very interesting question but one without, at this time, a clear answer.
Posted by George Kenney on May 9, 2009 12:50 AM 
« Fan Movies | Main | The Ringer »
Comments
It would appear to this bystander that whatever the bureaucrats at the State Dept have done over the past 8 years, any worthwhile efforts would likely have gone unrecognized and, thus, would have been of little positive consequence during the administration of GWB. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine what anyone in an incoming administration would be able to do to alter the course of events in AfPac land. Should Obama have had a plan that differed from that of the Pentagon/NSA crowd, he would likely have had to expend a lot of time and effort that he did not wish to do. As your intended next podcast guest (James F. Douglass, author of that excellent book about JFK) could (be asked to) recall — efforts to alter Vietnam strategies during the JFK administration met with failure and were likely sabotaged by those who make the 'great' decisions. Even if Obama had had the insight (guts) to select a McNamara look-a-like, any effort to stop the AfPak nonsense would likely fail. After all, the oil pipeline crowd and the Indians has great plans for that region. Further, I suspect that the politically-safe approach for Obama is to let the NSA/Pentagon cliques make critical decisions. Obama is obviously a shrewd operator, however, he has neither experience nor insight into dealing with the situation in that neck of the woods. He seems to deal with the crises involving the economy/banks, the Israelis and the Afghans/Pakistanis by delegating responsibilities to the same gang who were running the show under GWB. The likelihood that he would ever get around to a re-investigation of the 9/11/2001 disasters seems nil. Obama has a silver tongue and a commanding personality, however, he strikes me as the perfect bankster/mobster shill for this time in history. He has great popularity among people of color, many of whom may have given money to his campaign (as I did), but are unfamiliar with the economic pressures alleviated by bankster contributions which facilitated his getting elected to the Presidency. I doubt that Obama had a great deal to do with the selection of R Holbrooke (and I suspect that Clinton also may have had little to do with Holbrooks's selection during that earlier administration); obviously, Holbrooke does know the 'right' people.
[One version of the Holbrooke story I've heard, which may or may not be accurate, has Obama giving Hillary her choice for SecState, and her choice was Holbrooke. She reconsidered after a while, however, and instead nominated herself. Which may explain why Holbrooke feels entitled to act as if he's the shadow Secretary. g.]
Posted by: William Wilson | May 9, 2009 5:27 PM