| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| David Warren: Bush "suckered the U.N. into signing on to the New Iraq through Brahimi" |
| 2004-06-03 |
| David Warren is the smartest columnist in Canada, at least when Mark Steyn is in New Hampshire. EFL. Hat tip: Donald Sensing. No one else will say this, so I will. The Bush administration has handled the transfer of power in Iraq more cleverly than anyone expected, including me. The summoning of the U.N. envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, looked like very bad news (a poisonous old Arab League chauvinist who brokered the sell-out of Lebanon to Syria in 1982). In grim moments, I believed the Bush people were cynically using him to wash their hands of Iraq, and as it were, dump the quagmire back in the swamp of the U.N. Instead, they froze the ground beneath Brahimi’s feet, and skated rings around him, haggling behind his back with Iraq’s new political heavyweights to leave him endorsing a fait accompli. If it were not vulgar, I would say the Bushies suckered the U.N. into signing on to the New Iraq through Brahimi. A sovereign, free Iraq which will, incidentally, have a few things to say about the U.N.’s $100-billion "oil-for-food" scam, in due course. Every time I start to think W is blowing it, I come to learn that he’s four moves ahead of the opposition. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #20 LH, I think you may have some mistaken assumptions with regard to the desireability of 'ideological consensus' within an administration. At least, I don't think that is what Bush himself would say is his first or second criteria for a good team. I think Ptah is pretty close to the heart of the matter: Bush knows what he wants to accomplish and is willing, not only to delegate, but also to allow a fair degree of disagreement within the ranks on how to get there -- until a decision is made, in which case it is time for the team to pull together. All leadership styles have weaknesses as well as strengths. The weakness in Bush's style comes when there is substantial confusion or jockeying for position among the players in the press. But the strength of his style is exactly what Ptah points to: if you are willing to be humble, and don't care who gets credit, you can accomplish a great deal. Bush has declared, and shows every sign of acting on, the biggest realignment of US strategic policy in 40 or more years. His opponents consistently 'misunderestimate' him and he manages to turn that into one part of his success. That doesn't mean that things always go smoothly but it does mean he never loses sight of the main goals he sets and he's not afraid to have strong players on his team. I've been a registered Dem for 30 years, but find myself deeply impressed by Bush since 9/11. Rumsfeld knows the 'competing camps' leadership model well - he is famous for having used it very successfully at Searle. Powell, of course, has a different model - not just an ex-general, but Army in particular. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-06-03 8:35:42 PM |
| #19 Please Jen? |
| Posted by: Harpi 2004-06-03 7:45:33 PM |
| #18 I know there are no leaks, because I know President Bush and he runs a tight ship--if someone leaks, there will be hell to pay. (Leaks were the stock in trade of the Clinton Administration and worked so well with their incestuous relationship with the press.) Not only is President Bush personally averse to leaks--His father *was* head of the CIA, you know, and taught his son that leaks can be deadly--but we are at War and leaking is a tremendous security problem and would cost lives. I have no doubt that there are one or two in the Administration who are "moles" like Richard Clarke, usually holdovers from the Clintoon Administration and not loyal to Bush or of an ideological consensus with the Bushies, who find themselves more than willing to blab to the press for whatever reasons... We live in interesting and trying times. They are gradually revealing themselves for who and what they are. Clarke is a Manchurian candidate type guy--Clinton holdover, Washington power player wannabe, failure at his pet project of "Cyber-terrorism," an old man who can't learn a new game. Clarke is bitter and feels cheated from occupying what he feels was his "rightful" place in history as part of the solution, rather than part of the cause of 9/11. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-03 6:17:09 PM |
| #17 1. Both Zinni and Scowcroft have been the epitome of Useful Idiots as far as being the tools the Liberal Media has used to bash Bush. (As a Jew, Zinni should concern you. He's no friend of Jews and he did a miserable job as the U.S. mediator to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Im very concerned about Zinni. I have major problems with the dems who support him. I recall however that he was appointed mediator by one Colin Powell. Thats not a credential for Zinni in my book, its a problem for Powell. 2. I did not say i take any pieces from the media at face value. Nor do i take the things said by the admin at face value. BTW, I also read the Wash Times on occasion. What i see there confirms my impressions about a divided administration. Or maybe I need you to guide me about what true in the Wash times as well? 3. How can you possibly KNOW for sure that there are no leaks in the admin? Unless you know every journalist who claims a leak, or every Bush appointee? Look, you claim to dislike Clarke. Is it impossible that he leaked while still in the admin? And if he did, why not others? There are numerous liberals who supported the liberation of Iraq. In todays contexts i call them liberal hawks. Some are harsher on the Bush admin than I am. I dont see how that makes them not hawks. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-03 6:05:45 PM |
| #16 Sorry, old boy, but to take the NYTime and WaPo and even some pieces in the WSJ at face value is to be captive of the Left. Both Zinni and Scowcroft have been the epitome of Useful Idiots as far as being the tools the Liberal Media has used to bash Bush. (As a Jew, Zinni should concern you. He's no friend of Jews and he did a miserable job as the U.S. mediator to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.) Virtually everyone of the detractors of the Bush Administration has come forward to justify their own failures in the same areas. Nominally, they are "Conservatives" or even "Republicans" but they're really not or at least, not anymore. The Left and the partisan media uses them to chip away at the Bush Admin., destroy its credibility and its potency and at the same time, they work to erode the very power of America itself in wartime. All unforgivable to me and tantamount to aiding and abetting the Enemy if not actual treason. It would be one thing if they knew what they were talking about, but they don't. It would be one thing if they dealt with facts and argued their position honestly, but they don't. For you to advocate these Leftist organs of propaganda--particularly here--is almost unbelievable, if not inexcusable. YES, THEY LIED TO SELL PAPERS AND TO GET LIBERALS BACK IN POWER BY BRINGING DOWN BUSH. This is true of almost every media organ (including TV) there is except for FoxNews and the Washington Times. President Bush doesn't lie and his Administration doesn't leak, a complete about-face from the most corrupt Administration in history--that of Clinton--that went before. I'll be honest--I have a hard time dealing with someone who calls themselves "Liberalhawk," as I don't believe there are any Liberal "hawks." Even Lieberman has trouble with the concept. The last real Liberal hawk was probably LBJ. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-03 5:55:05 PM |
| #15 jen, from time to time i read the Times, and the WaPo, and the WS, and the NRO, and other sources too. Thanks for letting me know that you take the admins word over even neocon journalists. It may be that this is the first non-leaky admin in history. It may well be that General Zinni and Brent Scowcroft wrote their pieces over the (private) objections of Colin Powell, and that all the neo con pundits who claim they have sources for their attacks on Powell are all exageratting, or even lying, to sell mags. Lies that just happened to match those of the WaPo and NYT. It may be that Wolfowitz was happy with the decision NOT to train larger numbers of Iraqi exiles. We wont find that out for years, when the principle write their memoirs, and even then there may be controversy. For now,we must each judge what is most credible. However I would appreciate it that when I assert my beliefs in things that are virtualy conventional wisdom in the neocon press, you not attribute it to my being captive of the left. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-03 5:36:27 PM |
| #14 The Bush Administration doesn't leak and yet the stories you're talking about assume leaks. what is your basis for saying that? |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-03 5:27:14 PM |
| #13 My 2 cents.Powell is inherently conservative(traditional meaning,not political)His Powell doctrine on using military force would have meant no D-DAy,in fact no war w/Nazi Germany,cause US couldn't be sure it had enough force to win. He would make a great Sec.of State in peacetime.His State Dept. has done good work in Libya and stopped the N.Korea "Oh no,they are going to threaten us unless we negotiate(ie. give them money and food)" dance.However,his State Dept. screwed up negotiations w/Turkey before Iraq War;that has lead to most of our post-war problems.(Complaints about too few troops would have been met by Arm.Div.coming out of Turkey,liberating North Iraq and building Kurd/Iraqi force in US-friendly north that could have been deployed for internal security in Southern Iraq.I also give some blame to Pentagon,Rumsfeld and Franks for letting that division sit,instead of at minimum sending division's arm.inf. to Iraq immediately.)In a war w/idealogical foe you need bold vision.I think Powell shrinks from that.He dislikes the "radicals",who want to spread freedom and democracy to the world and see that as US mission.He may be loyal to Bush and play good-cop,but that doesn't mean he has to like the "radicals",and it doesn't keep him from trying to stop them before a particular policy is made. On top of everything else,Powell is ambitious(you don't rise like he has w/out ambition)and is very protective of his image.I could easily see him serving as Sec.State for a moderate Democrat,or a Democrat like John Edwards who has no interest in foreign policy and no apparent animus against US military. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-06-03 4:37:51 PM |
| #12 Lh, if you see that theme in the WS and NRO, it's because *some* Conservatives like to play Monday morning quarterback and/or they think Bush is Santa Claus to give them everything they want from a GOP Conservative. With Bush, always watch his feet and not his hands. Journos like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes and Jonah Goldberg (to a lesser extent) like to "tell" Bush what they'd like him to do in their mags. It sells magasines. The Bush Administration doesn't leak and yet the stories you're talking about assume leaks. I think you're really relying on the NYT and WashedUp Post to form your real opinions and if you are, you're being critically misinformed. Don't ask me who opposed OIF because they opposed reform--you're the one who said they "knew" of such op eds well. I've never seen anything to point to the fact that SecState Powell wasn't a "loyal soldier"--in point of fact, he wouldn't join the Clintoon Admin. even though Bubba begged him because he knew he couldn't be loyal to Clinton! And Powell's loyalty as a soldier has very little to do with our causus belli in Iraq and who advocated what to Bush. What Wolfowitz's remark revealed to me was that the Bush Admin. was unified about OIF, but that they all had different reasons--all of them valid--for taking out Saddam for good. Wolfowitz said that WMDs were the "focus" because most of us on the Right still think Saddam had them and that they're somewhere and it was the most easily understood and compelling reason for the American people to advocate régime change there. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-03 2:09:51 PM |
| #11 1. first of all zinni was a general, not an admiral (nit pick) 2. Zinni was Powells special rep to the Mideast 3. Brent Scowcroft. BTW McCain never opposed the Iraq war, as Zinni and Scowcroft did. But then McCain isnt a pal of Powell. If its only dems who think the admin is divided internally, why do i see that theme regularly in the Weekly Standard and the National Review? Are they liberal mouthpieces? And remember Wolfowitz saying that WMDs were the focus of the justification for war, cause it was the only one we could all agree on? Who exactly, was opposing the reform of the middle east as a reason for war? Or was Wolfowitz lying (hint - I dont think so) All evidence points to the fact that Powell was not a loyal soldier. He may have been playing "good cop". The sun may rotate around the earth, as well. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-03 1:59:18 PM |
| #10 Libhawk, Dr. Rice isn't supposed to be Kissinger. Noone is Kissinger but Kissinger. And Powell is the "good cop" for the world (Leftist) media to Bush's "bad cop." He does the diplomatic happy talk other world leaders like. I don't recall any important Conservative or GOP writing an op ed opposing the Iraq war* and I made myself read everything. *BTW, assclowns and the Left's Useful Idiots who insist they're "Conservatives" but really aren't like Adm. Zinni, Dick Clarke, Gen. Barry McAffrey, John McCain, etc. don't count. So, as you would say, Cite please. Bush and his cabinet, of course, are "ideologically" as one and don't kid yourself that it's otherwise. The dream of the Left and the Dimocrats is that Bush's cabinet is as awful, uncoordinated and clueless as Clinton's, which even DNC-friendly Don Imus compared to the bar scene in Star Wars. President Bush wouldn't have picked these people when he won the 2000 election if he didn't think they'd be with him, come rain or come shine. This he learned from his father well. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-03 1:48:12 PM |
| #9 Let me be more explicit. Bush is a Harvard MBA. He has a good command of overall policy. Hes primarily a people person, relying on his ability to work with people, to delegate, etc. This can be the OPTIMAL way of being a CEO. Unfortunately the structure of the US national security bureaucray is such that there is an almost built in conflict between the SecDef, the SecState, and the DCI. This has been the case regularly = notably under Nixon, Ford, Carter and to a lesser extent under Clinton and Reagan. There are four possible outcomes 1. A President who is detail oriented guides security policy himself 2. A president with an absolutely clear ideology keeps the disputes within bounds. 3. An NSA with unusual power and command subordinates everyone else 4. Disaster 1 is basically what happened under Bush sr - bushSr was so foreign policy oriented himself that he kept things in line. 2 was Reagan, at least for the first 6 years of his admin 3. Was kissinger, under both Nixon and Ford 4. Was Carter I'll avoid charecterizing either the clinton years, or the last two years under Reagan. Now Condi aint Kissinger. And Bush doesnt seem to command the ideological consensus within his cabinet that Reagan did, or to be able to use knowledge of details to go around a SecDef or SecState or DCI the way Bush Sr could. This has APPARENTLY led to serious conflict within the admin, leading to several difficulties. Of course it could be that this APPARENT conflict, including for example, a string of op eds by prominent republicans opposing the Iraq war in the months leading up to it, which just HAPPENED to all be by men with close ties to Colin Powell, was all a charade, a good cop, bad cop routine. As some have claimed. Maybe. I have my doubts. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-03 1:31:24 PM |
| #8 At most ive wondered if he has sufficient command of the details to keep his APPARENTLY divided team on track. As long as everybody is pointed in the same direction and moving toward the same destination then staying with the confines of the paved surface isn't really necessary.....would be nice, tho... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-06-03 1:19:23 PM |
| #7 At most ive wondered if he has sufficient command of the details to keep his APPARENTLY divided team on track. That's known as the diplomatic way of calling someone a moron. |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-06-03 1:14:37 PM |
| #6 ZF - did you read my second sentence? I myself affirmed the possibility that this may be a machiavellian maneuver - Im just not certain that it is. I see evidence both ways. By the way Ive never said Bush is a moron. At most ive wondered if he has sufficient command of the details to keep his APPARENTLY divided team on track. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-03 11:57:56 AM |
| #5 What helps Bush is his real devotion to Christianity. Pride is the chief of sins, and slaying that monster is goal #1, starting as early as being required to publicly confess your inability to save or improve yourself and rely on God's grace. Once one disposes of pride, there's no limit to what one can do if one truly doesn't give a damn who gets the credit... |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-06-03 11:48:56 AM |
| #4 Liberalhawk: its not clear to me if W gets the credit for this, or if the Iraqis on the governing council saved the day, despite Bush blundering. I would give GWB more credit than that. This kind of thing is his modus operandi - it's what drives his opponents nuts - he sets thing up so that it seems like his opponents are getting what they want, and then he pulls the rug out from under them. To his enemies, it seems like pure luck - but GWB's done this over and over again, to the point that I see these as calculated maneuvers. You may not always get what you plan for, but you *never* get what what you don't plan for. I understand why Liberalhawk might think of GWB as a moron, but I'm past questioning his maneuvers. Behind the facade of folksiness, GWB has the mind of a Machiavelli. His enemies see him as both an evil genius and an evil moron. In my mind, there's no question about it - GWB is a political genius - he's no Reagan, persona-wise, but he's getting almost as much done as Reagan did. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-06-03 10:45:12 AM |
| #3 its not clear to me if W gets the credit for this, or if the Iraqis on the governing council saved the day, despite Bush blundering. Of course Bush has reason, in terms of the Iraqi political situation, to let it look like the latter even if its not entirely so. Dont think we'll know the truth of this for some time. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-03 10:01:18 AM |
| #2 Ooops. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-06-03 6:34:21 AM |
| #1 I posted this here yesterday. Before Sensing. |
| Posted by: someone 2004-06-03 6:33:11 AM |