Holbrooke and Genocide

First: I am not a supporter of Bush in any way, and will not be voting for him. I mention this first so as to preempt the inevitable YAH BUT BUSH DID 'X" comments. Fuck Bush.

That out of the way, I think you Kerry supporters should understand what kind of people you are voting for.

I know most westerners don’t give a fuck about East Timor, but please try to find it in your heart to care for one second and ask yourself why the FUCK Kerry couldn’t find SOMEONE, ANYONE* other than Holbrooke for Secretary of State.

Also, if any of you start explaining why, really, supporting the Indonesians in this way and quietly maneuvering to keep it out of the elections isn’t so bad, really, because you are so partisan for Kerry that genocide does not move you, I think I am actually going to physically break down and cry.

Mark

*anyone does not include Henry Kissinger

Yes, extremely disappointing. The entire country basically sat on it’s hands while the genocide was going on, republican and democrat alike directly and indirectly supported mass murder, and everyone continues to ignore the sins of Kissinger and his underlings.

If this is some kind of call for Nader (as I assume the antiwar site is), I’ll just have to ask those folks to step back to reality.

For those of us who are actually unashamed liberals, this election (and every election for the forseeable future) is about the lesser of two evils. It is exceedingly clear who the lesser evil is, and that, as they say, is that. Clinton was buddies with Holbrooke too, and he was a hell of a lot better for the country and the world than Bush. EDIT: Also, I know you said it’ll make you cry, but Bush tried to appoint kissinger to head the 9/11 commission, fercrissakes.

If Kerry gets elected, I’ll be among the first to start bitching about his choices and policy errors (just as I did with Clinton and his half-assed health care and destruction of welfare), but that’s truly besides the point.

GodDAMN it. This is not a call for ANYONE, Malphigian! Jesus Christ! The ONLY point of this post is to make people aware of this shit! What is WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? I am not being partisan! AUGH!

Mark

Ok, I have calmed down a little bit. I was enraged because I took pains to avoid the appearance of partisanship, and bam, I get called a partisan.

"Yes, extremely disappointing. The entire country basically sat on it’s hands while the genocide was going on, republican and democrat alike directly and indirectly supported mass murder, and everyone continues to ignore the sins of Kissinger and his underlings. "

First: This is not “extremely disappointing”. This is the supplying of arms to people engaged in genocide, with full knowlege of their actions. This is monstrous. I entirely agree with the comment on Kissinger. Also, I would say that sending them weapons DIRECTLY supported them. Not indirect, direct. They knew what was going on.

"Also, I know you said it’ll make you cry, but Bush tried to appoint kissinger to head the 9/11 commission, fercrissakes. "

I understand this, and was appalled when it was going on, and glad to see that motherfucker go. However, head of an investigatory commission is FAR less significant than Secretary of State. Your analogy fails, because although Kissinger is unquestionably worse than Holbrooke, the position he was being placed in is far less significant.

“If Kerry gets elected, I’ll be among the first to start bitching about his choices and policy errors (just as I did with Clinton and his half-assed health care and destruction of welfare), but that’s truly besides the point.”

This is not a “policy error”, Malphigian. This is making the Secretary of State someone who directly aided and abetted in genocide, and then conspired with Paul “The Devil” Wolfowitz to keep this out of site come this election. This is not welfare. This is not health care. This is murder.

Mark

This is the day before an election, it is impossible (at least for me) to consider any political news about the candidates outside that context. And, I’m sorry, but “think about the kind of people your voting for” has a pretty strong partisan flavor, since it’s pretty clearly a call for people to reconsider their votes.

Will I be upset if Holbrooke is, in fact, Kerry’s Secretary of State? Certainly. It’s an ugly little math o’ doom you need to do when your trying to figure out who is less evil between the two candidates. We know the Bush administration is chock full of people with blood on their hands, and we now strongly suspect the Kerry administration will have at least one. Sucks, and I’d love it to be another way, but it isn’t.

I don’t know what kind of reaction your hoping for (if any), but I’ve long since passed the point where I’m surprised by or can muster much outrage at the monsters in either party.

As I recall, the CIA supplied intelligence to Indonesia in support of the invasion. Who was the head of the CIA back then?

I’d be a lot more believing of this if it came from someone other than the Zmag crowd, who insisted Bosnia was a western war of aggression for oil rights against the poor Serbs.

http://www.google.com/search?q=holbrooke+east+timor

So what’s the argument here?

  1. The US sold arms to Indonesia, knowing it would use them to slaughter East Timor.
  2. The person directly responsible for the creation and management of this policy was Henry Kissinger.
  3. The person responsible for the implementation of this policy was Richard Holbrooke.

That said, what are the specific accusations against Holbrooke?

  1. That he authorized arms shipments to Indonesia. Assistant Secretaries of State authorize arms shipments?
  2. Being involved with the policy in general.

And…that’s it, actually. The rest is the use of ominous out-of-context statements.

So I need to see evidence that the policy was wrong (probably not much, looking at it), and a better argument about why it’s Holbrooke’s fault.

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-

  1. Was it wrong to send weapons to Indonesia during the genocide?
    and
  2. 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

On selling arms, I was actually looking for information on why we sold them the weapons. The Cold War? Oil? Wanted the contracts? Google gives me nothing but content-free hyperventilating.

Documents detailing the weapons transfers signed by Holbrooke?

Yes. At a minimum, evidence he approved of it even if he wasn’t responsible. You’re basically asserting that a guy who isn’t Henry Kissinger was just as evil, so forgive me for asking for a high burden of proof.

On a more general note, do you despise everyone who worked in the state department during the Vietnam war?

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?

David Horowitz, how ya doin’.

You compare me to David Hororwitz? Clearly there is no hope for an attempt at intelligent conversation on these boards.

As far as why we sold them weapons, I honestly do not care. Not in the slightest. There are no justifications for aiding and abetting in genocide.

In re: Vietnam- It depends on what kind of connection they had to the War. If their connection is as close as Holbrooke’s, absolutely I do. The more tenuous the connection, the less worthy of blame they are.

As far as more “official” documentation on this subject, I suggest the Hearings Before the Subcommittee on International Organizations of the Committee on International Relations, U.S. Policy on Human Rights and Military Assistance: Overview and Indonesia, 15 February 1978.

Also, not only do I not assert that he was just as evil as Kissinger, I explicitly point out that Kissinger was worse in my post above. I am stating only that he (Holbrooke) aided and abetted in genocide, either through deliberate action or by being a critical link in the chain, one close to the top. Your natural leftist response is to try to frame things in terms of comparisons. It is all just as I said above. A leftist cannot say “I am about to vote for a man who will appoint a monster to power.” He must say BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS OTHER GUY?!? I may disagree with Malphigian in that I will not vote for Kerry because of this, but I respect his honesty in acknowledging that these people are motherfuckers.

I mention Stalin and Pol Pot, and you mention David Horowitz. This is precisely the kind of leftist idiocy I mentioned above. Rather than confront, you spin and manipulate. What you are doing here is linking me to someone with views that are widely disliked, without regard to the substance of my position. It’s like rightists who scream HITLER WANTED TO BAN GUNS TOO when gun control legislation comes down the pipe. You disgust me, sir. For the record, I depise Horowitz, I despise his attempt to get “freedom of speech” on campuses through legislation, disagree with his position on slave reparations, and, well, just about anything else. But I should not have to defend myself in this way.

I will not post here again.

After the hyperbole you tossed around, you had that one coming.

Okay

Good question!

Answer: George H. W. Bush.

Mother Jones reported on this story back in 1999 when Holbrooke was going as an observer to East Timor. As an Assistant Secretary of State for a particular region, he would (should) have had quite a bit of responsibility for advising the President and Congress on what to do about the Indonesian invasion.

Add to this dubious record of achievement his (obviously incorrect) 1980 Congressional testimony that there was no major fighting going on in East Timor, and we have a confirmation hearing mess ready to happen if anyone in the GOP has the guts to take on the Cold War coddling of tyrants.

Since his years at the UN, I believe that Holbrooke has had an enviable record as a diplomat dedicated to peace and human rights. But I’d feel a lot better if he would address this charge directly. It’s common knowledge in the foreign policy community, and will be a front page story if he tries to get confirmed as Secretary of State.

Troy

Sigh. I said I wouldn’t, but here I am, posting again.

I am not surprised in the slightest by H W Bush being head of the fucking CIA when this went down. Thanks for the heads-up, Andrew. yet another reason for a great big fuck you to the entire Bush clan, now and forever.

Mark

edit: I cannot imagine anyone in the GOP having the balls to accuse anyone of tyrant-coddling. The hypocrisy would be so great that the universe itself might collapse under it’s weight.

Mark, you’re making serious charges with very vague documentation. I’m supposed to go look it all up in god-knows-where some subcommittee hearing?

As to the Horowitz thing, maybe you shouldn’t accuse wide swaths of people of “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?” if you’re so touchy. My “natural leftist comparison” is to wonder what your views are on collective gulit re: Vietnam. Your answer is “it depends on what kind of connection they had to the war,” which surprisingly is my answer on Holbrooke. Running the Asia office when we sold Indonesia weapons used for invading East Timor isn’t primae facie “aiding and abetting genocide.”

  1. I haven’t seen a case made for genocide - looks more like garden-variety invasion and minority abuse to me.
  2. Foreign policy isn’t as simple as “always be nice,” it is possible there’s mitigating circumstances. See: Vietnam, Korea, post WW2-Greece, the entire history of US intervention in the Middle East (especially Egypt).

Anyway, my thinking here is “Holbrooke seems like a reasonable person, so I want to see more on why we were sucking up to Indonesia before I start calling him a war criminal.” You could just as easily argue that Carter’s unpronouncably-named Secretary of State (or Carter, or Reagan) aided & abetting terrorism by giving weapons to the Afgahn mujaheddin, using the logical process in these articles.

Oh, and to expand on the Bosnia point I made earlier:

  1. Serb partisans (and those who opposed the 90s Balkans actions for anti-imperialist or whatever reasons) absolutely loathe Holbrooke for what he did in the Balkans under Clinton.
  2. A lot of them work for the Zmag/Mother Jones/etc. network.
  3. Guess where this line of criticism on Holbrooke is coming from? Same network.

So this does complicate things a bit, especially when it’s about something comparitively obscure like this.