War on Peace The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence by Ronan Farrow

War on Peace The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence by Ronan Farrow Winner of the Pulitzer Prize (for a complete different story) is an amazing, engaging, enthralling absorbing book about what it means now and what it meant in the past in the USA, diplomacy.

What is diplomacy first of all? The first meaning on google I found (and with dial-up I stayed there) given by the Merrian-Webster Dictionary doesn't have any doubts: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations but also skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility.

Written divinely well, with clarity and at the same time the light style of the perfect storyteller and man of the world, trust me when I tell you that you won't be in grade to put down this book. If you are also interested to discover the biographies/existences of the most preeminent American diplomats, Ronan will reveal most of it; confidences, roles played by them in the diplomatic fields; marriages, divorces, children, habits.

Diplomacy was an aspect particularly important for the USA; in the past the country didn't experience serious problems because there was a good corp of diplomats in grade to keep on relationship with the world in a healthy way.

But, starting decades ago, the decadence. Reagan, Bush, after 9/11 the perception that maybe there was a big lack in this field appeared more clear and relevant.

Americans started to discuss topics with militars than not with diplomats and this one is a different song with different expectations and complete different results. Often.

While the current administration did all its best for cutting out most of the prominent diplomats still existing in the Department of the State including Countryman, we will focus our attention on Richard Holbrooke maybe the last and biggest eminent diplomat of the USA.

Holbrooke remembered the war of Vietnam; the one started in Afghanistan had various analogies and this comparison scared him to death.
The first analogy was that the Vietnam war was won thanks to a country adjacent to the conflict; in Afghanistan problem was an administration favoring writes Ronan Farrow "military voices and missing opportunities for negotiation."

Henry Kissinger would admit that diplomats with Afghanistan, after 9/11 committed their own errors as well; relationship with Pakistan were active because Americans tried their best  for capture Osama bin Laden, seeing him as an enemy before 9/11. Without any success.
At the same time Pakistan started to flirt with Soviets as well and the US, during a break in the bombing and too distracted for seeing what it was going on, "permitted" to a group of people, all terrorists, to emigrate in good places where they could start their projects for later to continue to devastate the Western world as we know it.
A CIA agent, wrote Ronan, admitted that "It was a mistake."

At the same time, back to the personal history of mr. Holbrooke, the man was searching for a high profile chair and the election of Obama meant to him the "expulsion" in prominent roles. Holbrooke didn't publicly, writes Ronan Farrow, adversed Obama, but he neither supported him, preferring also for a story of chairs, explains Farrow, the Clintons.
After all, as also writes Farrow "Obama just didn't like the guy."

That years Holbrooke assembled what Farrow calls "Ocean's Eleven heist team." Thirty young boys and girls from different disciplines and agencies with or without government experience; Ronan becomes after a while director of the Global Youth issues during the so-called Arab Spring.

Holbrooke in the while surrounded the office and himself by a lot of reporters, inviting celebrities. Ronan remembers that "There were reminders of his view of our place in history everywhere." and asked to Farrow if he was keeping a journal because one day he would have written about it.

President Obama asked a sweeping review in the while of America's role in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Bob Woodward, see at the voice Watergate, was involved in the project.
Obama didn't want to appear weak and decided to send more military forces in the areas although with the disapproval of various eminent American characters and diplomats.
While journalists started to be killed in that area of wars, Holbrooke tried his best for investing in agriculture in that distant lands.
Holbrooke tried his best for ending the war in Afghanistan presenting stability to Pakistan although someone said him that in those places it wouldn't have been as easy as at first imagined. Sure the best thing to do was to start a dialogue with the counterparts...At the same time frictions of Richard Holbrooke with the White House because of different visions and strategies starts to be known.
Holbrooke had seen Vietnam and he knew what had to be done.
He was sidelined although Clinton tried to protect him under her wings as long as possible. Holbrooke later needed to be operated with urgency but as you will read the procedure was absolutely nasty and Holbrooke didn't survive. Someone said that he asked to the doctor he would have operated him (he told him of staying relaxed)  of ending the war in Afghanistan, that it was what he wanted to do.
In the while diplomacy didn't sort out anything and someone called the year after the departure of Holbrooke an annus horribilis.
The fear of Holbrooke of a possible militarization of the US's approach with other countries remained in the memory of people close to him as a possible reality; with the Trump's administration writes Farrow, this story became real.
9/11 created of course a lot of confusion and shadows, and terror. In the immediate the question was: how to answer to these terrorists? Terrorists are shadows but they are also people and they live somewhere and someone protected them, asking them what to do, how to do that. There was and there is a structure well organized behind them.

What you'll understand reading this book, written by someone who is inside the world of diplomacy, and it will make the difference, trust me, is that certain men make the difference and diplomacy mainly makes the difference when it is driven, guided by brains in grade of looking forward, in grade to see how a situation contorted, maybe also difficult can be sorted out. Also the end of a conflict or just when it's necessary to keep harmonic relationships with close countries.

When diplomacy for a reason or another fails or is absent, an important ring of the chain in the process of dialogue between countries is missing, because guns or militars can't sort out the problems of this world. When a countryman chooses to let see to the world its "muscles" (guns, military forces) acts strategically carrying a precise message, but sometimes strength without  good brains and dialogue can't go too far.

We live in a confused world where the certainties of the past seem to be gone and where confusion and sadness and resurgence of old spectres are characterizing this historical moment.
Diplomacy is not just important in this historical moment but fundamental and vital!

Highly recommended book!

I thank Norton and Wiley for the physical copy of this book.

Anna Maria Polidori