[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 41 (Monday, April 15, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         CORRECTING THE RECORD

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, April 15, 2002

  Mr. FRANK. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, March 24, just after we entered 
our spring recess, the New York Times Sunday magazine published a very 
interesting interview with Richard Holbrooke, who served as U.N. 
Ambassador during the Clinton administration. In a short interview, the 
questioner put several important questions and Ambassador gave very 
cogent answers. Because Ambassador Holbrooke effectively counters a 
good deal of mistaken argument in this relatively short space, I ask 
that some of the remarks relevant to current policy disputes be printed 
here. Ambassador Holbrooke brings to some of our ongoing debates 
important perspective and a keen intelligence. In particular I commend 
to Members Ambassador Holbrooke's argument that with regard to the 
military effort in Afghanistan, ``the military leadership in this 
country was essentially the same group of senior officers that served 
the previous administration. The military budget was the budget 
submitted by the Clinton administration. On the military side I think 
any President would have responded the same way.'' He then draws on his 
significant experience in dealing with the aftermath of a successful 
military effort to note, accurately, ``the true test of a military 
action is the peace that follows it. Right now, because of the strict 
limits that the Pentagon has placed on the international peacekeeping 
force . . . the country is in extreme danger in falling back into the 
hands of warlords and drug lords and terrorists.''
  Furthermore, in his comment on foreign policy in general, Ambassador 
Holbrooke points out that ``there are some people in Washington right 
now who are so hostile on a visceral level to what was done in the 
Clinton administration that they haven't looked at the successes of 
that time.''
  Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to Ambassador Holbrooke for speaking out 
in ways that some will find controversial, but which are in fact lucid 
and persuasive, and very relevant to our current policy discussions.

       Question. With all that has been happening in the world 
     these days, has it been hard to sit on the sidelines?
       Answer. There are plenty of times when you look at things 
     and you say: ``They did that well, or they should have done 
     that differently. I might have done that differently.'' I 
     think everyone second-guesses public officials, and people 
     who have been in public affairs are more likely to do so. But 
     it's not a healthy way to live. And those people who stand 
     around and say, ``I would have done it this way instead of 
     that way'' are going to waste their lives thinking about 
     things that are too hypothetical.
       Question. During the first few months of the war in 
     Afghanistan, a log of people, including Democrats, said that 
     they were surprised to find themselves feeling grateful that 
     Bush had won, because no Democratic administration would have 
     prosecuted this war as well as his administration has. Is 
     there anything to that?
       Answer. I've heard that from people, but I reject it 
     completely. First of all, the military leadership in this 
     country was essentially the same group of senior officers 
     that served the previous administration. The military budget 
     was the budget submitted by the Clinton administration. On 
     the military side, I think any President would have responded 
     the same way. And we can win any military victory at any time 
     at any place against any enemy in the world. But the true 
     test of a military action is the peace that follows it. Right 
     now, because of the strict limits that the Pentagon has 
     placed on the international peacekeeping force--5,000 troops, 
     no Americans, limited only to the capital city of Kabul--the 
     country is in extreme danger of falling back into the hands 
     of warlords and drug lords and terrorists. And if this 
     happens, Afghanistan will once again become a sanctuary for 
     attacks against the United States.
       Question. So what advice would you offer to those in power 
     now?
       Answer. We should apply what we learned in the Balkans to 
     Afghanistan. But there are some people in Washington right 
     now who are so hostile on a visceral level to what was done 
     in the Clinton administration that they haven't looked at the 
     successes of that time. This was particularly evident in the 
     Middle East, where they thought the president was too 
     engaged, so they decided to be unengaged. Would the 
     deterioration of the situation have occurred had the United 
     States been more actively involved? I can't say, but it's 
     hard to imagine the situation being more dangerous than it is 
     today.
       Question. Has the administration taken this military 
     victory as a sign that it can afford to go it alone in 
     general?
       Answer. There are people in the administration who have 
     made strange noises--atonal noises--that have a unilateralist 
     component. If there are people who hold these views, they 
     will come up against the harsh reality of the world, which is 
     that not even the U.S. can go it alone.
       Question. What about Milosevic? You have made it clear that 
     you have admiration for his wiles, even if you deplore his 
     principles. Now he's defending himself in the special 
     tribunal. How has he been doing?
       Answer. His performance has been what anyone who knows him 
     would have predicted. He has a legal background, he's smart, 
     he's tricky, he's very dangerous, he's in possession of many 
     facts that he can twist to his own purposes. But I have no 
     doubt that he belongs in The Hague, on trial, that he's 
     responsible for the four wars of the Balkans. This is 
     probably his final strut on the world stage, and the stage is 
     getting smaller--it's no longer southeastern Europe; it's a 
     courtroom.





                          ____________________