The book "The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat", by Vali Nasr, who served as advisor to Holbrooke at the State Department, offers a critique of the White House's handling of the foreign policy issues under President Barack Obama's first administration.
To create a new narrative in US-Pakistan relations, Nasr writes, Holbrooke started by calling together a meeting in Tokyo of the newly created Friends of Democratic Pakistan, an international gathering to help Pakistan rebuild its economy and strengthen democratic politics.
He got $5 billion in pledges to assist Pakistan. Nasr, who worked with Holbrooke until his death in December 2010, says Holbrooke hoped that the opening would garner even more by way of capital investment in Pakistan's future. But if we wanted to change Pakistan, Holbrooke thought, we had to think even bigger, in terms of a Marshall Plan, Nasr recalls.
After a journalist asked him whether the $5 billion in aid was too much for Pakistan, Holbrooke answered, "Pakistan needs $50 billion, not $5 billion."
For the White House the idea meant a fight with Congress and spending political capital to convince the American people, Nasr argues.
"Above all else, it required an audacious foreign-policy gambit for which the Obama administration was simply not ready," he claims.
Nasr also points out in the book that in reality the United States was spending much more on Afghanistan that it devoted to Pakistan.
"For every dollar we gave Pakistan in aid, we gave $20 to Afghanistan. That money did not go very far; it was like pouring water into sand. Even General Petraeus understood this. I recall him saying at a Pakistan meeting: "You get what you pay for. We have not paid much for much of anything in Pakistan." In the end, Nasr says the U.S. settled for far more modest assistance.
The 2009 Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation earmarked $7.5 billion in aid to Pakistan over five years, the first long-term civilian aid package.
"It was no Marshall Plan," Nasr remarks. Holbrooke also believed the U.S. needed more aggressive diplomacy.
"America had to talk to Pakistan frequently and not just about security issues that concerned the United States, but also about economic and social issues the Pakistanis cared about. So Holbrooke convinced Clinton that America had to offer a strategic partnership to Pakistan, built around a formal 'strategic dialogue' the kind of forum that America holds with a number of countries, including China and India," he argues.
Nasr, who is the dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, writes that the US National Security Council at that time "wanted to do the State Department's job but was not up to the task. It was no surprise that our AfPak policy took one step forward and two steps back." He says despite efforts by Hillary Clinton, the US foreign policy was shaped by the security institutions who had a "predictably narrow and terrorism-focused" approach.
A spokesperson described the relations between the State Department and the White House as excellent, when the issue was raised in the light of the book at the daily briefing. The spokesperson also defended progress made in Afghanistan.
"We have an excellent working relationship with our White House and interagency colleagues and let me just tell you a little bit about where we are in Afghanistan, because some of the thrust of the book is talking about policy development on Afghanistan.
" We've increased the capacity of Afghan security forces to fight insurgents, transitioning Afghan security lead transitioning to an Afghan security lead, building an enduring partnership with Afghanistan," acting deputy spokesman Patrick Ventrell told journalists.
"We now have Afghan forces leading nearly 90 percent of operations across the country. We've signed the Strategic Partnership Agreement. We're working on a new negotiating a new bilateral security agreement," he added.
"We're working on preparations for a free, inclusive, and transparent election in 2014. So we really stand behind the record of the progress we've made in Afghanistan, but beyond that i'm not going to get into inter-agency discussions," he said.
Ventrell said the State Department regularly gives its input on foreign policy issues but added he would not characterize some sort of historical discussion about what happened in years past.
COMMENTS (9)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Those people who think that we do not need the US for our economic recovery need to wake up...no country can survive on its own..for economic development you need capital investment..if the US invests / grants aid to Pakistan. investment from other countries will flow in too
Pakistan needs trade, not aid.
No amount of money in the world is going to change Pakistan from its self-destructive mode which is built into its DNA because of its religious foundation. More than 65 years of Islamist fervor has produced an army of such people who have spread out all over the world. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ore-man-charged-helping-bomber-pakistan-18661910
truth_prevails, Babloo did not imply any India-Pakistan issue here.
More aid, can only be diverted to corrupt politicians be it India or Pakistan. There is no accountability and can lead to dangerous scenario in a religiously volatile Pakistan.
India and most Indians only want a stable Pakistan and look at the plump market for business and trade just like Afghanistan.
true Indian sentiments.
Had Pakistan not allowed Nixon to fly to China, the Soviet Union would have won the Cold War and the US would have ceased to exist. Pakistan should ask for its due share. Nobody is begging here. One is only asking for justice and fair payment.
@Babloo: Indian sentiements! I understand. But whatever u think or say Pakistan will come out of this dawn. Paksitan has been handling the arrogance of India a country 5 times bigger, so trust me bro, u'll see a nice sunny morning settling down in Pakistan very soon INSHAHALLAH!
This could have happened before Abbottabad and Shakil Afridi. No chance now.
Holbrooke is a fool. No amount of donor money can change Pakistan. It will only make it more corrupt and more dangerous.
It is high time, that the USA should not have a security / Terrorism centric relationship with Pakistan, rather a wholistic relationship. Considering, Pakistan has placed it's development on hold for the last TEN YEARS plus, it is now incumbent on all members of ISAF to pay the PIPER ( Pakistan ).
It is imperative that every member of ISAF contribute generously towards the redevelopment of Pakistan. It is the average citizen, who has lost out for the last TEN YEARS.
NOW it is Pakistan's turn to say " ISAF members, DO MORE, DONATE $$$ MORE ".