Tag Archives: Richard Holbrooke

How Many Peace Movies Have You Seen Lately?

“There are countless films about war, but so few about making peace.”
—David Holbrooke, speaking of his new film, The Diplomat, about his father, diplomat Richard Holbrooke (The Foreign Service Journal, “ A Love Letter to Diplomacy,” November 2015)

Perhaps war movies serve a purpose in forcing us to understand the horrors of war, but too many such movies, like all violent movies, anesthetize us to the violence they portray.

Study the young soldiers given medals for acts of heroism in war. We, most of us, have not known war. We choose to honor them as a way to show our appreciation. Yet, the honor frequently reminds them of friends they have lost. They survived and must deal with it, the lost years of their friends weighing on them.

Rather than being entertained by war movies, perhaps we should listen to those who have actually fought in war:

“I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.”
–From “On Killing” by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

“Some of you young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all hell!”
–General William T. Sherman, speech, 1880

This holiday season, search for a peace movie—one portraying grace, courage, or forgiveness.

Vietnam: To Avoid Repeating History

The Foreign Service Journal devoted its April, 2015, issue to the fortieth anniversary of the fall of Saigon to the North Vietnamese.

Several future American leaders served apprenticeships as young diplomats in that country. Many, including Richard Holbrooke, point man in later diplomatic efforts in Serbia and Afghanistan, learned lessons they never forgot. Holbrooke wrote in an article for The New Republic (May 3, 1975): “But then finally it all seemed to come down to one simple, horrible truth: we didn’t belong there, we had no business doing what we were doing, even the good parts of it.”

More than three million Americans served in Vietnam, a country of 26 million, in one capacity or another. Yet we failed.

Many in the U.S. government in the last years and months of our efforts in Vietnam were in denial. They did not plan for the defeat that younger colleagues knew was coming.

It was left to lower level Foreign Service officers to plan evacuations. Two young officers risked disciplinary punishment to fly unauthorized into Saigon in the last days to aid evacuation efforts. Others worked their contacts in Washington. Not only were Americans in danger, but also their Vietnamese coworkers, who risked harsh measures if left behind. Finally, thousands of Vietnamese were evacuated with Americans and third country nationals.

A review of those last days before the fall of South Vietnam reminds us that we are not all powerful. We failed to defeat the Communists in Vietnam. Our later victory in the Cold War came from economic staying power and a strong military that we chose not to use in major conflicts. Better if we had not chosen to enter Vietnam.

Lessons for today?

 

Nationhood In The Facebook Age

 

A couple of years before he died, the diplomat Richard Holbrooke wrote: “The United States is still great. It deserves leadership worthy of its people, leadership that will restore the nation’s pride and sense of purpose. That task must begin at home, but the world will be waiting and watching.” (Foreign Affairs, September/October, 2008.)

Holbrooke began his diplomatic career with a tour in Vietnam. Later, after he left the U.S. Foreign Service, various presidents called on him to perform hard tasks. The most famous were the 1995 Dayton peace talks that ended the Balkan wars.

He understood what it meant when the United States no longer won decisive victories. He was serving, even as he died, as the government’s point man on Afghanistan. He knew the limits of our power in a world where other countries were becoming strong and prosperous, too.

The complexity of today’s world means a few individuals can cause havoc. Terrorist attacks or the ending of a dictator’s power by crowds inspired through social networking—the rules have changed since the battles of the twentieth century.

The mighty British empire over two centuries ago was unable to force a ragtag bag of American colonials to do what it wanted. It wisely left the fray and allowed its former colony to go its own way.

We still have power, but we need wisdom in the use of that power. We first need to strengthen our institutions at home, to see that ordinary people can build decent lives. We win more permanent battles by the moral influence we possess than by our weapons.

“Even the Good Parts of It.”

 

Sometimes good works are done for wrong reasons or out of ignorance.

Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. diplomat who brokered an end to the genocidal Balkan wars of the 1990’s, was influenced during his entire career by the tragedy of America’s involvement in Vietnam.

He spent his first diplomatic postings in the 1960’s in that country, taking part in efforts to “win the hearts and minds” of the Vietnamese. He saw those efforts fail, and disillusionment followed as he realized that American power, great as it is, has limits.

 

 

Holbrooke wrote: “But then finally it all seemed to come down to one simple, horrible truth: we didn’t belong there, we had no business doing what we were doing, even the good parts of it.” (quoted in The Unquiet American: Richard Holbrooke in the World, page 105, from an article he wrote for The New Republic, May 3, 1975.)

 

Holbrooke died suddenly in the middle of his diplomatic mission in another war, this one in Afghanistan. He saw differences with Vietnam, including the fact that America had been deliberately attacked by enemies with bases in Afghanistan. However, he also detected similarities with the quagmire that became Vietnam: ” . . . the existence of an indefensible border harboring enemy sanctuaries; American reliance on a corrupt partner government; and, most critically, the embrace of a counterinsurgency doctrine, which he had learned through painful experience was an exceedingly difficult military and civilian strategy to execute.” (The Unquiet American, page 95.)

How did the United States become involved once again in nation building? Because we allowed our justifiable anger at the 9/ll attacks to carry us too far.  To attempt even good things that we had no business doing. Emotion overrode reason.