Monday, March 26, 2007

PRT diplomats coming to Iraq

"Ten veteran diplomats and four representatives of the Agency for International Development will depart for Iraq in coming days as the civilian core of 10 new provincial reconstruction teams, the first step in what the Bush administration has promised will be a significant increase in efforts to accelerate local economic and political development.
. . . Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, meeting with the new reconstruction team members on Friday, said, “I do believe that we learned an important lesson during our time in Iraq, which is that we don’t want to just try and build, and help the Iraqis build a stable, democratic society from the top down, but also from the bottom up.
“And that means that they have to have good local and provincial leadership, that they have to have good local and provincial governance, economic development. They have to be able to respond to the needs of their people. This is not a country that has had a concept of local governance and local leadership but rather one that was very much all centered in Baghdad, and we’re now trying to help them to build that.”

source
Shanker, Thom & Glanz, James. (The New York Times). Iraq Reconstruction Teams to Receive Needed Support. March 24, 2007.

posted: monday, march 26, 2007, 9:20 PM ET


tags:

Labels: , ,

Thursday, March 01, 2007

U.S. to attend meeting that includes Iran & Syria

"American officials said Tuesday that they had agreed to hold the highest-level contact with the Iranian authorities in more than two years as part of an international meeting on Iraq.
The discussions, scheduled for the next two months, are expected to include Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian and Syrian counterparts.
. . . Iraqi officials had been pushing for such a meeting for several months, but Bush administration officials refused until the Iraqi government reached agreement on pressing domestic matters, including guidelines for nationwide distribution of oil revenue and foreign investment in the country’s immense oil industry, administration officials said.
. . . [The talks] will include Britain, Russia, and a host of international organizations and Middle Eastern countries."

source
Cooper, Helene & Semple, Kirk. (The New York Times). U.S. Set to Join Iran and Syria in Talks on Iraq. February 28, 2007.

posted: thursday, march 1, 2007, 11:19 AM ET


tags:

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, February 15, 2007

N. Korea nuclear agreement

"The six-nation deal to shut down North Korea's nuclear facility, four months after Pyongyang conducted its first nuclear test, was reached yesterday largely because President Bush was willing to give U.S. negotiators new flexibility to reach an agreement, U.S. officials and Asian diplomats said yesterday.
Ever since the North Korean nuclear crisis erupted in 2002 after the discovery of a clandestine nuclear program, the Bush administration has insisted that North Korea should not be rewarded for its bad behavior -- and many of the U.S. offers have required Pyongyang to give up a lot before it could receive anything in return.
Now Bush has signed off on a deal that accepts North Korea's original position -- a "freeze" of its Yongbyon nuclear facility -- and requires Washington to move first by unfreezing some North Korean bank accounts. The agreement leaves until later dealing with such vexing issues as the dismantlement of the facility, North Korea's stash of weapons-grade plutonium and even North Korea's admission of the nuclear program that started the crisis in the first place." [1]

"For years, Mr. Bush’s administration has been paralyzed by an ideological war, between those who wanted to bring down North Korea and those who thought it was worth one more try to lure the country out of isolation. In embracing this deal, Mr. Bush sided with those who have counseled engagement, notably his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and her chief negotiator, Christopher R. Hill. Mr. Bush took the leap in the hope that in a few months, he will be able to declare that North Korea can no longer produce fuel for new nuclear weapons, even if it has not yet turned over its old ones.
For Mr. Kim, the nuclear explosion — more of a fizzle — that he set off in the mountains not far from the Chinese border in October turned out to be a strategic mistake. The Chinese, who spent six decades protecting the Kim family dynasty, responded by cutting off his military aid, and helping Washington crack down on the banks that financed the Cognac-and-Mercedes lifestyle of the North Korean leadership." [2]

source
[1] Kessler, Glenn & Cody, Edward. (The Washington Post). U.S. Flexibility Credited in Nuclear Deal With N. Korea. February 14, 2007.
[2] Sanger, David E. (The New York Times). Outside Pressures Broke Korean Deadlock. February 14, 2007.

posted: thursday, february 15, 2007, 2:37 PM ET


tags:

Labels: , , ,

Friday, February 09, 2007

Reconstruction part of surge lags; jobs & peace linked, study says

"Senior military officers . . . have told President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that the new Iraq strategy could fail unless more civilian agencies step forward quickly to carry out plans for reconstruction and political development.
. . . Mr. Gates said Tuesday that Ms. [Condoleezza] Rice had told him that her department needed six months to locate and prepare civil servants and contractors to send abroad.
. . . [F]rom the standpoint of personal security, taking those jobs — many of them, by definition, outside the relative safety of the Green Zone — is widely seen as an unattractive career option.
. . . Tasia Scolinos, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department . . . provided a fact sheet that showed that the Justice Department had 200 employees and contractors in Iraq as of last August." [1]

"The State Department has asked the Pentagon for 129 people to fill slots in 'business development, agribusiness, medicine, city management' and other areas for 10 new provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs), according to David Satterfield, [Condoleezza] Rice's coordinator for Iraq, who spoke to reporters in an afternoon briefing.
Deployments will last at least six months until Congress provides supplemental funding to pay for private contractors. The State Department has already filled its own slots on the new teams with 19 Foreign Service officers, Satterfield said, adding that the department is actively engaged in identifying appropriate contractors. The Agency for International Development will also supply personnel, he said.
. . . The administration has asked Congress for $538 million in supplemental funds to pay for the program. The PRTs, which are projected to be up and running by the end of next month, will be housed with U.S. military combat brigades." [2]

. . . [A] recent classified study, conducted by the Joint Warfare Analysis Center of the Defense Department . . . found that a 2 percent increase in job satisfaction among Iraqis in Baghdad correlated to a 30 percent decline in attacks on allied forces and a 17 percent decrease in civilian deaths from sectarian violence." [1]

source
[1] Shanker, Thom & Cloud, David S. (The New York Times). Military Wants More Civilians to Help in Iraq. February 7, 2007.
[2] DeYoung, Karen. (The Washington Post). Military Must Fill Iraq Civilian Jobs. February 8, 2007.


posted: friday, february 9, 2007, 10:06 PM ET

update: saturday, february 10, 2007, 11:37 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, January 18, 2007

Mainstream dictators

"SECRETARY OF State Condoleezza Rice's tour through the Middle East this week has been designed to exploit the 'opportunities' of what she views as a new divide in the region, 'between extremism on the one hand and mainstream states on the other.'
. . . The administration has decided to seek $98 million in funding for Palestinian security forces -- the same forces it rightly condemned in the past as hopelessly corrupt and compromised by involvement in terrorism. Those forces haven't changed, but since they are nominally loyal to 'mainstream' Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and serve as a check on the power of the 'extremist' Hamas, they are on the right side of Ms. Rice's new divide.
So is Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a thuggish autocrat who was on the wrong side of Ms. Rice's previous Mideast divide between pro-democracy forces and defenders of the illiberal status quo.
. . . The new U.S. policy betrays President Bush's freedom agenda, giving a free pass to dictators who support the new geopolitical cause."

source
The Washington Post. Lost in the Middle East. January 17, 2007.

posted: thursday, january 18, 2007, 3:36 AM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, January 15, 2007

Extremism, sectarianism, politicians and the people

"Moderates Will Be Vigorously Supported in their Battle with Violent Extremists
•Counter extremist portrayal of Iraq’s conflict as Sunni vs. Shi’a, rather than moderates vs. extremists.
•Recognize and act upon the reality that the United States has a national interest in seeing moderates succeed.
•Build and sustain strategic partnerships with moderate Shi’a, Sunnis, and Kurds." [1]

"•Primary challenge is violent extremists from multiple communities; the center is eroding and sectarianism is spiking.
•Iraqis increasingly disillusioned with Coalition efforts.
•While still committed to a unified Iraq, many Iraqis are also advancing sectarian agendas --as hedging strategies, pursuit of narrow interests, and due to history.
•Dialogue with insurgents has not improved security and may not produce strategic gains in current context." [2]

"SECRETARY RICE: . . . Our regional diplomacy is based on the substantially changed realities in the Middle East. Historic change is unfolding in the region, unleashing old grievances, new anxieties, and some violence, but is also revealing a promising new strategic realignment in the Middle East. This is the same alignment that we see in Iraq. On one side are the many reformers and responsible leaders who seek to advance their interests peacefully, politically, and diplomatically. On the other side are extremists of every sect and ethnicity who use violence to spread chaos to undermine democratic governments and to impose agendas of hate and intolerance.
Our most urgent diplomatic goal is to empower reformers and responsible leaders across the region, and to confront extremists. The proper partners in our regional diplomacy are those who share these goals -- our allies, Israel and Turkey, of course, but democratic reformers and leaders in places like Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and Iraq, and the responsible governments of the Gulf States, plus Egypt and Jordan, or the GCC plus two." [3]

"We have organized our diplomacy around the proposition that you begin with those who share your views of how the Middle East ought to develop, and therefore our diplomacy and my trip will focus heavily on rallying the support of those responsible Arab states to support the Government of Iraq, to support what needs to be done there, to support of course also Lebanon and the moderate Palestinians.
But as to Iraq, I do believe that the states of the Gulf and the Egyptians and the Jordanians understand increasingly that if they are to resist as much they want to, if they are to resist Iranian influence or increases in Iranian influence in the Middle East, something that they fear quite greatly, then it is going to require support for Iraq. Because Iraq can either be a barrier to further Iranian influence or it can become a bridge if it is not dealt with effectively." [4]

"To many, the crux of Iraq's intractable problem is whether the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- installed as Shiite Muslims were emerging from oppression under Saddam Hussein to become the country's ruling majority -- can rise above deep sectarian rivalry and protect Iraqi neighborhoods equitably, even in the face of catastrophic insurgent attacks by Sunni Arabs.
'The main reason for what's taking place in Iraq is the settlement of historical paybacks,' said Faiz Botros, 50, an Iraqi Christian sitting at a sidewalk table . . . in central Baghdad. 'Neither 20,000 soldiers, nor 100,000, nor hundreds of thousands, will change anything. In Iraq, the politicians are still living in a mentality from 1,400 years ago. And this is the disaster of Iraq.'
. . . 'This is not a one-party decision,' Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi said. 'It doesn't depend on Maliki or the UIA' -- a reference to the dominant Shiite coalition in the parliament -- 'or the Shia or the Sunnis alone. It depends on all parties and how convinced they are they want to live together. This is a process and it is historical work. Some have illusions they can gain power again. Others want to impose their ways.' " [5]

source
[1] National Security Council. Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review. (Summary Briefing Slides). January 2007. p. 9. (Major Strategic Shifts).
[2] National Security Council. Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review. (Summary Briefing Slides). January 2007. p. 7. (Key Assumptions: Now).
[3] U.S. Department of State. Briefing by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. January 11, 2007 (quote from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice).
[4] U.S. Department of State. Iraq: A New Way Forward: Secretary Condoleezza Rice. Testimony Before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. January 11, 2007.
[5] The Washington Post. Bush's Shift in Strategy Gets Dubious Reception On Streets of Baghdad. January 12, 2007.

posted: monday, january 15, 2007, 1:10 PM ET
update: monday, january 15, 2007, 3:36 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , ,

Bush plan to increase local political and economic efforts, some skeptical

"SECRETARY RICE: . . . We will further decentralize and diversify our civilian presence in Iraq to better assist the Iraqi people. Iraq has a federal government. We must therefore get our civilians out of the embassy, out of the Green Zone, and into the field across Iraq, to support promising local leaders and promising local structures. This will enhance and diversify our chances of success in Iraq.
The mechanism to accomplish this is the provincial reconstruction team, or PRT. The logic behind PRTs is simple: Success in Iraq relies on more than military efforts, it requires robust political and economic progress. Our military operations must be fully supported and integrated with our civilian and diplomatic efforts across the entire U.S. government to help Iraqis clear, hold and build throughout all Iraq.
We in the State Department fully understand our role in this mission and we are prepared to play it. We are already trying -- we are ready to strengthen, indeed, to surge our civilian efforts. We plan to expand our PRTs [Provincial Reconstruction Teams] in Iraq from 10 to at least 18. In Baghdad we will go from one PRT to six, and in Anbar province, from one to three, because local leaders are taking encouraging steps there to confront violent extremists and to build hope for their people.
To oversee our economic support for the Iraqi people, and to ensure that it is closely integrated with our political assistance and our security strategy, I am pleased to announce today that I am appointing Ambassador Tim Carney to the new position of Coordinator for Iraq Transitional Assistance. Ambassador Carney is formerly our Ambassador to Haiti. He has enormous experience in post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction and development. He will be based in Baghdad where he will coordinate and work closely with his Iraqi counterparts.
. . . In the provinces, it's also important to recognize that not everything -- as important as Baghdad is, not everything rests on Baghdad. One reason that we're diversifying and decentralizing into the provinces and the localities is that you want to strengthen the governance from the bottom up, as well. And we've learned that it is somewhat more effective to be able to deliver governance and economic development and reconstruction at a more local level.
And I think it's starting to have an effect. We've seen it work in Mosul, we've seen it work in Talafar, and as the Secretary said -- as Bob said, in Anbar, we're beginning to get some signs that the tribal sheiks there want to fight the violent extremists. And we've been in Anbar for awhile now working politically. So I think you should think of what the government needs to show in Baghdad, but also the building of governance structures outside of the country [Baghdad?]." [1]

"The front-line operatives in the campaign to stabilize Iraq are the American and Coalition members who comprise the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, or PRTs. These are relatively small operational units comprised not just of diplomats, but military officers, development policy experts (from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Justice), and other specialists (in fields such as rule of law, engineering, and oil industry operations) who work closely with Iraqi provincial leaders and the Iraqi communities that they serve. While PRTs dispense money for reconstruction projects, the strategic purpose of these civil-military field teams is both political and economic. By building provincial governments' ability to deliver essential services and other key development projects to local Iraqis, PRTs help to extend the reach of the Iraqi government to all corners of the country and help build the stability necessary to complete the transition to full-Iraqi control." [2]

"The teams consist of U.S. and Coalition Partner members and, depending on the needs of the province, range in size from 35 to 100." [3]

"Many outside experts said the new program will have little impact in the current climate of violence and political stalemate in Iraq.
. . . Administration officials insisted yesterday that long-standing difficulties between the U.S. military and civilian officials, particularly regarding the Provisional Reconstruction Teams, have been resolved. Even as the State Department had difficulty staffing the teams, the Pentagon was reluctant to provide security for them.
The teams, a Rice initiative begun in 2005, are designed to move into areas where violence has been quelled to provide immediate economic and civil affairs assistance so that residents can see tangible improvements in their lives after military action. In many cases, protection for the teams had to be purchased from private security contractors. In a highly critical October audit, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction said the teams had fallen far short of their goals and that as much as 30 percent of their funding had been spent on security costs.
According to a list of 'key tactical shifts' previewed by the White House yesterday, the State Department teams and the military's battalion combat teams will now be integrated "in most areas." [4]

"Whether it is wise to increase the staffing of the teams by a factor of five is likely to be questioned by existing team members, the American official said.
That is because extremely restrictive security regulations have made it difficult for the specialists already on the provincial reconstruction teams, often called P.R.T.’s, to leave their bases and work with Iraqis, the official said.
. . . Oversight agencies have previously reported that the existing teams have had trouble equipping themselves with items as essential as pencils and other office supplies.
The teams also have been criticized for relying heavily on uniformed personnel whose skills are poorly matched with specialized needs in the field. That concern has repeatedly come up because the State Department has had great difficulty persuading civilian officials to accept jobs at the dangerous, isolated and uncomfortable bases in the Iraqi provinces.
. . . Beyond their purely civil duties, the teams will also be expected to support the counterinsurgency efforts by the United States military." [5]

"Rep. Chet Edwards, a middle-of-the-road Texas Democrat who numbers President Bush among his constituents, did not judge the commander in chief's words about Iraq on Wednesday night through the lens of his party affiliation or personal predispositions.
His standard was set by an Army officer who sent the congressman a powerfully honest, thoughtful and sophisticated 3,800-word memo based on the soldier's experiences in Iraq.
. . . 'Our real goal,' he wrote, 'was to persuade our Iraqi friends and allies to actively and publicly support us . . . to help us tip the balance of public opinion in our favor.' That meant helping them with security and 'civil works projects' and giving them 'prestige by showing publicly that our commander listened to their advice.'
Then these shrewd words: 'We discovered that we were not fighting a military campaign, but a political campaign -- not too different from what a small town mayor might do to win reelection back in the U.S. . . . Fighting terrorists was only something we did when needed, because it interfered with our political objectives. If we could ignore the terrorists, we were winning. If we had to stop our economic and political activities in order to fight terrorists, they were winning.' " [6]

sources
[1] U.S. Department of State. Briefing by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. January 11, 2007 (quote from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice).
[2] U.S. Department of State. Provincial Reconstruction Teams: Building Iraqi Capacity and Accelerating the Transition to Iraq Self-Reliance. January 11, 2007.
[3] U.S. Department of State. Helping Iraqis Rebuild Iraq: Two Provincial Reconstruction Teams. January 11, 2007.
[4] The Washington Post. Reconstruction Effort to Emphasize Iraqi Jobs. January 11, 2007.
[5] The New York Times. Rebuilding Teams Would Swell Under Bush’s New Iraq Plan. January 15, 2007.
[6] The Washington Post. Wisdom From Down the Chain of Command. January 12, 2007.

posted: monday, january 15, 2007, 10:47 AM ET
update: monday, january 15, 2007, 3:50 PM ET

tags:

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, January 06, 2007

National intelligence director to head State Dept's Iraq policy

"John D. Negroponte's departure as the nation's first director of national intelligence comes as the two-year-old office and the broad, post-Sept. 11 reorganization that created it have yet to reach the goal of uniting the intelligence community under a single leader.
But Negroponte's move to become Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's deputy, and his replacement by retired Navy Adm. John M. McConnell, had little to do with any assessment of Negroponte's tenure or with the unfinished state of intelligence integration, a range of senior administration officials said.
Instead, it stemmed directly from the urgent need to fill a State Department job, vacant since early last summer, that was seen as crucial to implementing the new Iraq policy that President Bush plans to announce next week.
Negroponte will take charge of State's Iraq account as the administration begins a sharply uphill effort to turn around a failing war and persuade the new Democratic Congress to follow its lead. [He is] a career diplomat who served as Bush's ambassador at the United Nations and in Baghdad before becoming intelligence chief in April 2005." [1]

"Senior administration officials said that Ms. Rice wanted Mr. Negroponte to focus on China and North Korea, which have been among his focuses in the intelligence post, and on Iraq, a country he knows particularly well.
. . . Ms. Rice would continue to play a central role in Iraq policy, the official said, but she has also made it clear that she wants to devote more time to a broader diplomatic initiative aimed at Middle East peace.
. . . John E. McLaughlin, a former director of central intelligence who is a friend of Mr. Negroponte, said . . . he believed that Mr. Negroponte’s familiarity with the latest intelligence from Iraq would help to bring a 'realistic' view of the situation there as the administration works to develop a new strategy.
But other intelligence experts expressed concern about what Mr. Negroponte’s departure might mean to the office he helped to establish. “My major concern about this appointment is not about the State Department, but what happens at the D.N.I. office,” said Lee H. Hamilton, who served as co-chairman of both the 9/11 commission and the Iraq Study Group." [2]

So former CIA chief Robert Gates is the new Secretary of Defense and career diplomat turned national intelligence director Negroponte is about to lead the Department of State's Iraq agenda and help with President Bush's new plan for Iraq. Are military and intelligence the only two choices?

sources
[1] The Washington Post. Negroponte Moves to Job Considered Crucial at State Dept. January 5, 2007.
[2] The New York Times. Spy Chief’s Choice to Step Back Feeds Speculation. January 5, 2007.

posted: saturday, january 6, 2007, 5:09 AM ET

update: saturday, january 6, 2007, 5:49 AM ET

tags:

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Strongman solution rejected by Bush Administration before invasion

"SECRETARY RICE: . . . But you should understand that we had the debate inside the Administration, the discussion inside the Administration about whether it was good enough to overthrow Saddam Hussein and replace him with a strongman. We had that discussion and it was rejected because --
QUESTION: When did you have that?
SECRETARY RICE: Before the war, before the war.
QUESTION: Who wanted a strongman? (Laughter.)
SECRETARY RICE: Actually nobody. But I'm saying that the point was put on the table and it was rejected because the view was that if you were going to overthrow Saddam Hussein the Iraqi people deserved a chance at democratic development -- democratic development would give the best chance for a different kind of Iraq and ultimately a different kind of Middle East and that ultimately another strongman was just going to leave some administration 20 years from now with another Saddam Hussein. And so this was a conscience choice about what kind of Iraq we were going to try to build and I think it's important to understand that that was a choice before the war."

Source
[1] U.S. Department of State. Interview With The Washington Post Editorial Board. Secretary Condoleezza Rice. December 14, 2006.

posted: sunday, december 17, 11:58 PM ET
update: monday, december 18, 12:02 AM ET

Labels: , , ,

Iraq creating reconstruction board to disburse funds more quickly

The Iraqi government is "working on the creation of their reconstruction board which would be able to disburse money more quickly for projects because the Ministry of Finance is having trouble disbursing money," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

source
U.S. Department of State. Interview With The Washington Post Editorial Board. Condoleezza Rice. December 14, 2006.

posted: sunday, december 17, 2006, 4:58 PM ET
update: sunday, december 17, 2006, 5:02 PM ET

Labels: , , , , ,

Monday, November 13, 2006

Rice and Baker will probably work together on Iraq

"Over the past two months Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, quietly steered the White House toward replacing Donald H. Rumsfeld with Mr. [Robert] Gates, who had worked closely with Ms. Rice under the first President Bush.
. . . Ms. Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld never managed to resolve their differences, especially after their arguments over the handling of the occupation came into public view in late summer 2003.
. . . Together with Ms. Rice, Mr. Gates is expected to have to put into action recommendations by the [James Baker] study group that are likely to call for initiatives involving European allies and Iraq’s neighbors in the Middle East. The new plans are expected to mix diplomacy, the training of Iraqi troops and the use of American force to quell the violence in Baghdad, and to require close coordination between the Departments of State and Defense."

source
The New York Times. In Gates Selection, White House Hopes to Close Rift Between State and Defense. November 12, 2006.

posted: monday, november 13, 2006, 2:37 AM ET

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, November 11, 2006

More American dialogue with Iran and Syria may be coming

"The Democratic takeover of Congress will raise the profile of lawmakers who have repeatedly urged the Bush administration to talk to key adversaries such as Iran, North Korea and Syria, increasing pressure on the White House to stop placing restrictions or conditions on such discussions.
. . . Iran and Syria are problematic neighbors of Iraq, and critics have charged that not talking to Damascus and Tehran has hurt efforts to end the violence in Iraq.
. . . Since Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took office nearly two years ago, some restrictions on dealing with Iran and North Korea have been loosened.
. . . Outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is a fierce foe of engaging with enemies, but [Robert] Gates two years ago co-wrote a Council on Foreign Relations report that called for a "direct dialogue" with Iran."

source
The Washington Post. Democrats May Urge More Contact With U.S. Adversaries. November 10, 2006.

posted: saturday, november 11, 2006, 3:25 PM ET
update: saturday, november 11, 2006, 3:27 PM ET

Labels: , , , , , ,

Monday, October 23, 2006

Why wasn't Condoleezza Rice at the recent White House meeting on Iraq?

(caption) "President George W. Bush speaks during a video teleconference with Vice President Dick Cheney, on screen, and military commanders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House, Saturday, Oct. 21, 2006. Pictured from left are National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Deputy National Security Advisor J.D. Crouch, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State on Iraq David Satterfield, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Army General John Abizaid and Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Marine General Peter Pace." [1]

"President Bush met with his top advisers and military commanders on Iraq yesterday in a White House session that, senior officials said, weighed options for forging a way forward amid the surging violence but did not contemplate any major shifts in strategy.
The participants in the 90-minute video conference -- who included Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the military commander in Iraq -- talked about tactical changes that could overcome the severe challenges posed by the war, officials said.
"The participants focused on the nature of the enemy, the challenges in Iraq, how to better pursue our strategy, and the stakes of succeeding for the region and the security of the American people," said White House spokeswoman Nicole Guillemard.
The meeting, which the White House called the third in a series Bush has held with this group to consult on the war, did not consider any significant policy changes." [2]

Why wasn't Condoleezza Rice included in this meeting?

It seems that in a conflict where even the military says that there is no sole military solution, the Secretary of State should be at every important meeting to discuss and advocate possible diplomatic and governmental solutions.

In fact, the Department of State, not the Department of Defense, should have been the lead agency in Iraq soon after the fall of Saddam Hussein. That it was not may have been due, at least in part, to a vision of Iraq as an ally or instrument in the war on terror rather than as a vibrant, self-fulfilling nation in its own right.

And recall also that Rice was able to achieve a ceasefire in Lebanon after only 34 days, despite a late start.

sources
related postings
posted: monday, october 23, 2006, 5:59 AM ET
update: saturday, december 2, 2006, 5:25 AM ET

Labels: , , , , , , ,


View My Stats