Dick Holbrooke is a complicated political figure. To many, he represents the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party, the very type of adviser and outlook that led to the party's complicity in the Iraq War. But he's also, by wide acclaim, the most talented diplomat in the party. His work on the Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia, is legendary. So it makes sense that Obama is considering nominating him to be the key diplomatic envoy to South Asia, which would give him primary responsibility over Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. That makes sense. The guy's a good diplomat. Give him a diplomatic job.What was so frustrating about the constant drumbeat to make Holbrooke Secretary of State was that on the questions of grand strategy, he had failed. He'd not only supported the war in Iraq, but pushed the party to do the same. It was a costly error, and as the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy voice, it was, in large part, his error. But that doesn't obviate the fact that he excelled in aggressive, crisis-oriented diplomacy. This position would play to those strengths. He's being placed where he's succeeded, rather than failing upward into the realms where he faltered. This shouldn't feel weird, but in fact, it's rather odd to see government running with some level of logic and accountability. Spencer Ackerman says it's "good for the country, good for the region, good for Holbrooke, good for progressives. One might say it's all good!" DEPARTMENT OF SENSIBLE APPOINTMENTS.
Dick Holbrooke is a complicated political figure. To many, he represents the hawkish wing of the Democratic Party, the very type of adviser and outlook that led to the party's complicity in the Iraq War. But he's also, by wide acclaim, the most talented diplomat in the party. His work on the Dayton Accords, which ended the war in Bosnia, is legendary. So it makes sense that Obama is considering nominating him to be the key diplomatic envoy to South Asia, which would give him primary responsibility over Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. That makes sense. The guy's a good diplomat. Give him a diplomatic job.What was so frustrating about the constant drumbeat to make Holbrooke Secretary of State was that on the questions of grand strategy, he had failed. He'd not only supported the war in Iraq, but pushed the party to do the same. It was a costly error, and as the Democratic Party's leading foreign policy voice, it was, in large part, his error. But that doesn't obviate the fact that he excelled in aggressive, crisis-oriented diplomacy. This position would play to those strengths. He's being placed where he's succeeded, rather than failing upward into the realms where he faltered. This shouldn't feel weird, but in fact, it's rather odd to see government running with some level of logic and accountability. Spencer Ackerman says it's "good for the country, good for the region, good for Holbrooke, good for progressives. One might say it's all good!" 
