But I'm not buying an 8½ year-old war from him.
To get his non-verbal cues in his sale pitch, skip ahead in this video to 2.33:
Here are the money lines he's putting across the table to Rachel Maddow:
Why we're in really matters. we're in Afghanistan because if we fail in Afghanistan, it will have a direct, immediate danger to us. it will increase Al Qaeda's worldwide reach. they will come back with the Taliban in all likelihood and they will gain a worldwide success, which will be very dangerous for our national security interests so we have to be clear, the American public needs to be clear on why we're in Afghanistan. this is not Vietnam. a war which I participated in as a state department civilian when I entered the government. this is not the Balkans. it's not Iraq. this is quite different. this one relates directly to our safety at home.Maddow:
We tried to do counter insurgency in Vietnam, too. pretty explicitly. you look back at those efforts, all those years ago, do you really have confidence that a foreign country can help create a state somewhere else, that we really can stand up an Afghan government?Holbrooke:
I think we can, if ? we do it right. the fundamental difference is the one you and I have already mentioned. it matters to our homeland security. Vietnam did not, although at the time, the administrations in power did say it did, but they were wrong.... it's a process which is not easy, and you only embark on it if you decide that it is absolutely critical for the u.s. national interests, which it is.Rachel's not buying this antique Déjà Vu counter-insurgency war. Neither am I.