As far as why selling arms to Indonesia was wrong, a casual web search will link you to all manner of discussions on the East Timorian genocide. Estimates indicate that Indonesian troops killed roughly 200,000 people out of the 600,000 that lived there.
What you seem to be asking other than that is for more direct evidence beyond the fact that Holbrooke was head of the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs when the weapons transfers happened. What precisely are you looking for? Documents detailing the weapons transfers signed by Holbrooke? I am not being sarcastic, honest. I can see how you would want more information, more is always good, but I am pretty certain that the above post would make Holbrooke pivotal in any such transaction. I am under the impression that such positions give relatively broad strategic planning discretion (subject to the executive, of course).
It seems that your argument boils down to-
- Was it wrong to send weapons to Indonesia during the genocide?
and
- If so, what did Holbrooke have to do with it?
I think the answer to 1 is clearly yes. As far as 2 goes, well, as I said, I am pretty sure the position he holds (and similar positions) have pretty broad discretion. However, let’s say he merely implemented the policy. Even if that were the case, I would still despise the man. For surely, being in the position he was in, he would have access to intelligence as to the nightmare unfolding in East Timor. The proper course for an honorable man in such an instance would be to refuse, protest and resign if protests were not heeded. “I was only following orders” does not cut it for aiding genocide.
Humor me. If a Bushista had done what Holbrooke seems to have done or aided in doing, would you feel the same way? Seriously, imagine if my post had been exactly the same, only replace Holbrooke with some Bush appointee. Don’t answer, you don’t have to, just THINK about it.
The thing that terrifies me the most about both leftists and rightists is how one moment they will say good things about hating murderers and human rights, and then THE INSTANT it is alleged that someone from “their side” has done something, they simultaneously minimize the import of the conduct and attack the other side for being "just as bad’. They never, ever, say “Wow, people we have supported have been some real monsters!” Seriously, I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAIN that if a democratic president had invaded Iraq and the whole drama had unfolded precisely as it has, the parties would simply reverse positions.
I think this is why I could never call myself a Democrat. There is no amount of villainy that can cause a leftist to admit error. No amount of murder or horror- how often is Pol Pot or Stalin talked about in such circles? Really, seriously talked about? I might agree with any number of leftist positions but…it just disgusts me. And yes, everything I said above applies just as well to rightists, too, I just figure there are few in the audience here, so probably not worth talking about.
Please note I am not attacking anyone personally here, rather I am speaking in broad, general strokes.
Best Regards,
Mark L