[spacefreak]

Bush has had enough with the slow progress, and is taking the reconstruction out of Rumsfeld's and the Pentagon's hands. Looks like Ms. Rice will have a more important role.

White House to Overhaul Iraq and Afghan Missions
October 6, 2003 - by David Sanger, NY Times

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 — The White House has ordered a major reorganization of American efforts to quell violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and to speed the reconstruction of both countries, according to senior administration officials.

The new effort includes the creation of an "Iraq Stabilization Group," which will be run by the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice. The decision to create the new group, five months after Mr. Bush declared the end of active combat in Iraq, appears part of an effort to assert more direct White House control over how Washington coordinates its efforts to fight terrorism, develop political structures and encourage economic development in the two countries.

It comes at a time when surveys show Americans are less confident of Mr. Bush's foreign policy skills than at any time since the terrorist attacks two years ago. At the same time, Congress is using President Bush's request for $87 billion to question the administration's failure to anticipate the violence in Iraq and the obstacles to reconstruction.

"This puts accountability right into the White House," a senior administration official said.

The reorganization was described in a confidential memorandum that Ms. Rice sent Thursday to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet.

Asked about the memorandum on Sunday, Ms. Rice called it "a recognition by everyone that we are in a different phase now" that Congress is considering Mr. Bush's request for $20 billion for reconstruction and $67 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. She said it was devised by herself, Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Powell and Mr. Rumsfeld in response to discussions she held with Mr. Bush at his ranch in late August.

The creation of the group, according to several administration officials, grew out of Mr. Bush's frustration at the setbacks in Iraq and the absence of more visible progress in Afghanistan, at a moment when remnants of the Taliban appear to be newly active. It is the closest the White House has come to an admission that its plans for reconstruction in those countries have proved insufficient, and that it was unprepared for the guerrilla-style attacks that have become more frequent in Iraq. There have been more American deaths in Iraq since the end of active combat than during the six weeks it took to take control of the country.

"The president knows his legacy, and maybe his re-election, depends on getting this right," another administration official said. "This is as close as anyone will come to acknowledging that it's not working."

Inside the State Department and in some offices in the White House, the decision to create the stabilization group has been interpreted as a direct effort to diminish the authority of the Pentagon and Mr. Rumsfeld in the next phase of the occupation. Senior White House officials denied that was the case, and said in interviews on Sunday that the idea had been created by members of the National Security Council and embraced by Mr. Rumsfeld, who has been a lightning rod for criticism about poor postwar planning.

"Don recognizes this is not what the Pentagon does best, and he is, in some ways, relieved to give up some of the authority here," a senior official insisted, noting that L. Paul Bremer III, the head of the allied provisional authority in Iraq, will still report to the Defense Department. But one of Mr. Bremer's key deputies will sit on the new stabilization group, giving him a direct line outside the Pentagon.

Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita, said Sunday that the defense secretary was "aware of the new approach" and noted that Mr. Bremer's "relationship with Rumsfeld remains unchanged."

If Mr. Rumsfeld is giving up some authority, officials say, so is Mr. Powell. The State Department has been in charge of the Afghan reconstruction effort, but now the White House will assert new control over the interagency effort there.

"While the problems in Afghanistan are less complex," a senior official said, "the president wanted to know how come it took so long to get the highway under construction." That project has become symbolic of the slow pace of reconstruction, especially outside the capital.

The creation of the stabilization group appears to give more direct control to Ms. Rice, one of the president's closest confidantes, who signed the memorandum announcing it. For the first two and a half years of Mr. Bush's presidency, Ms. Rice often seemed hesitant to take a more active role, eschewing the kind of hands-on approach for which Henry A. Kissinger and other national security advisers were known, and viewing her job chiefly as providing quiet advice to Mr. Bush.

Now, four of her deputies will run coordinating committees — on counterterrorism efforts, economic development, political affairs in Iraq and the creation of clearer messages to the media here and in Baghdad.

Each working group will include under secretaries from the State, Defense and Treasury Departments, and senior representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency.

State Department officials have complained bitterly that they have been shut out of decision-making about Iraq, even as attacks on American troops increased, lights failed and oil production remained stuck far below even prewar levels.

Mr. Bush, a senior administration official said, made it clear that he wanted "all the powers of the government" turned toward making the reconstruction work in both Iraq and Afghanistan. "The president is impatient with bureaucracy," the official said.

In the interview, Ms. Rice described the new organization as one intended to support the Pentagon, not supplant it.

"The N.S.C. staff is first and foremost the president's staff," she said, "but it is of course the staff to the National Security Council." That group will in effect be taking more direct responsibility.

The council is made up of top advisers to the president who meet three times a week in the Situation Room. They have often seemed unable to coordinate efforts on the main issues relating to the occupation of Iraq. "The Pentagon remains the lead agency, and the structure has been set up explicitly to provide assistance to the Defense Department and coalition provisional authority," Ms. Rice said.

Other officials said the effect of Ms. Rice's memorandum would be to move day-to-day issues of administering Iraq to the White House.

The counterterrorism group, for example, will be run by Frances F. Townsend, Ms. Rice's deputy for that field. Economic issues — from oil to electricity to the distribution of a new currency — will be coordinated by Gary Edson. He has been the liaison between the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.

Robert D. Blackwill, a former ambassador to India, will run the group overseeing the creation of political institutions in Iraq, as well as directing stabilization for Afghanistan.

Anna Perez, Ms. Rice's communications director, will focus on a coordinated media message — a response to concerns about the daily reports of attacks on American troops and lawlessness in the streets.

[Uday's Carcass]

sounds more like an overhaul on this end, not a serious change in the way things are done.

[Face Ache]

Hey good news at last. I hope they improve the situation(s).

If I could find any fault with it it would be:

"The president knows his legacy, and maybe his re-election, depends on getting this right."

It would be a real pity if that was the motivating force.

But hey, good on Bush.

[clarkgoble]

I doubt it has much to do with legacy than with frustration that things aren't working. We'll see how Rice plays the game now the apparently Powell and Rumsfield are being downplayed.

[Lerkfish]

It will be interesting to see how bush apologists react to this.
Remember, when bush critics pointed out there were problems with afghanistan and Iraq, we were called traitors, saddam-lovers and communists. We were told 10 years is even too early to determine the success or failure of the missions. To criticize it now was dooming it to failure. Now that Bush himself is saying the same thing that we bush critics have been saying all along, where does this leave the apologists?

either:

A: They will have to agree with Bush NOW and admit there are problems, and admit their denials of it previously were wrong.

or

B: they will have to accuse Bush of being a traitor, saddam-lover or communist, or of making judgements too early.


I"m going to go with A, except since they can never admit to being wrong, they will have to use this spin:

"Hey, we NEVER said there weren't problems."


they'll have to deny their denials...as per usual.

[Millennium]

No one ever said that there were not problems. There are always problems. Even the easiest nation-building projects (in whatever way the word "easy" could possibly apply to such a vast task) have problems.

But it seems the two sides do not agree on exactly what those problems are. There's some overlap, to be sure. But as one example, many conservatives do not see the delays as a problem; they accept these as en example of the fact that nation-building takes time.

I do agree, however, that most of these judgments have been made much too soon, this reorganization included. Rome was not built in a day, and neither will Baghdad be, as much as we might wish otherwise.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
No one ever said that there were not problems.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But it seems the two sides do not agree on exactly what those problems are. There's some overlap, to be sure. But as one example, many conservatives do not see the delays as a problem; they accept these as en example of the fact that nation-building takes time.

I do agree, however, that most of these judgments have been made much too soon, this reorganization included. Rome was not built in a day, and neither will Baghdad be, as much as we might wish otherwise.

My main beef with many on the left is that "what is going wrong" is something I trust my leaders and government to determine - not some partisan reporter who sits around a hotel room in Bagdhad, scanning the radio and racing out to the site of an attack, or a journalist sitting in a news room in Los Angeles basing his analysis of events in Iraq on such reports.

Bush, the administration, and the various departments and agencies involved are the ones most qualified to analyze actions in Iraq, and implement solutions to those problems.

The US wants to get the job done right, and with such a large project, the US is more able to attend to the various issues affecting the progress if it does not have to devote such energies defending every negative report that the press and Democrats try to blow up into a firestorm.

I also despise those who consistantly root for problems with the reconstruction. Whether or not one supported the action taken against Saddam is one thing, but to hope and root for disasters and the reconstruction's failure is insensitive.

Everyone should be pulling together to see that Iraq succeeds. I question the motives, values, and humanity of those who wish for the opposite.

[Logic]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
I also despise those who consistantly root for problems with the reconstruction. Whether or not one supported the action taken against Saddam is one thing, but to hope and root for disasters and the reconstruction's failure is insensitive.

Everyone should be pulling together to see that Iraq succeeds. I question the motives, values, and humanity of those who wish for the opposite.

Agreed!

But could you tell me who has been rooting and hoping for disasters? I haven't seen anyone do that so far.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I"m going to go with A, except since they can never admit to being wrong, they will have to use this spin:

"Hey, we NEVER said there weren't problems."

they'll have to deny their denials...as per usual.

Are they "denying their denials" or are you denying your misinterpretation of what conservatives have said?

Perhaps I've missed a few posts on the board, but I have yet to hear anyone say that there were no problems with the reconstruction. What I have heard is that despite these problems, the effort was not fundamentally flawed. This is another area where Left Vs. Right seem to differ: Right will accept some obstacles, while Left doesn't seem to do this.

[theolein]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
My main beef with many on the left is that "what is going wrong" is something I trust my leaders and government to determine - not some partisan reporter who sits around a hotel room in Bagdhad, scanning the radio and racing out to the site of an attack, or a journalist sitting in a news room in Los Angeles basing his analysis of events in Iraq on such reports.

Bush, the administration, and the various departments and agencies involved are the ones most qualified to analyze actions in Iraq, and implement solutions to those problems.

The US wants to get the job done right, and with such a large project, the US is more able to attend to the various issues affecting the progress if it does not have to devote such energies defending every negative report that the press and Democrats try to blow up into a firestorm.

I also despise those who consistantly root for problems with the reconstruction. Whether or not one supported the action taken against Saddam is one thing, but to hope and root for disasters and the reconstruction's failure is insensitive.

Everyone should be pulling together to see that Iraq succeeds. I question the motives, values, and humanity of those who wish for the opposite.

I presume your words "I trust my government" mean that you trust the present government, but that you wouldn't trust the previous government or the next one if they weren't the ones you voted for, or do I misunderstand you?

I for one don't trust any government, not my own, not yours, none. Governments are made up out of people. People have a lot of failings, and in my experience, giving trust to people in positions of power is asking them to abuse it. That's just my opinion. If you want to trust your government's judgement, then so be it, it's your right to do so.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by theolein:
I presume your words "I trust my government" mean that you trust the present government, but that you wouldn't trust the previous government or the next one if they weren't the ones you voted for, or do I misunderstand you?

It's had to speculate since the previous two administrations were afraid to remove Saddam because they felt Iraq couldn't be 'reconstructed'.

I also want to point out that I think we are in World War III, and in any big war, I feel it's important to support one's nation and people.

My "trust" statement was in regards to fighting wars and determining best-course-of-action in a hostile environment. I am not there, and I don't have access to the resources and information that our leaders and experts have. Therefore, i defer those types of decisions to them. That's their job.

Clinton's military missions - i may have questioned the policy behind it, but i didn't lash out at the military assessments, soldiers, commanders, Defense Secretary, was strategy, etc. Once the decision to go to war is made, I put my trust in the military and their professionals.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Clinton's military missions - i may have questioned the policy behind it, but i didn't lash out at the military assessments, soldiers, commanders, Defense Secretary, was strategy, etc. Once the decision to go to war is made, I put my trust in the military and their professionals.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
It's had to speculate since the previous two administrations were afraid to remove Saddam because they felt Iraq couldn't be 'reconstructed'.

there. Just rearranging your post so it makes more sense.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
World War III, and in any big war, I feel it's important to support one's nation and people.

WWIII?

I hate to break it to you, but there's more to the world than the U.S., Britain, and whoever they're attacking. Unlesss you think they're attacking the whole of the rest of the world, in which case I would hope that no one would support them because that would just be ludicrous.

It's important to be faithful to your own ideals and morality and to oppose any actions that go against them. That's what democracy is about.

[thunderous_funker]

Everyone knows the government is infallible when it comes to war and spending billions in foreign countries.

Sadly, that same brilliant leadership is far too incompetent and corrupt to be trusted to run education, regulate business or provide healthcare.

100% faith that the government will make all the right decisions concering every aspect of people's lives in other countries.

100% doubt that the government will make all the right decisions concering any aspect of people's lives domestically.



Well, I guess since it's WWIII we should just declare Bush "dictator", allow him to disolve the annoying and incompetent bureaucracies and do what's necessary to usher in the Millenial Reign of Christ according to prophesy.

[macvillage.net]

This really is meaningless, and does nothing more than make headlines that "Bush is making an effort", or "Bush has not forgot about..."

What's this going to do? Seriously. The issues are all still there. Milions of people in a country... countries of destroyed infrustructure, lack of law, lack of government, lack of pretty much everything.


This doesn't do anything for the ultimate goal: Rebuilding and moving out.

This is PR.

The easy part in these countries is the beurocracy.

The hard part is getting the country to the point where beurocracy is worth something.

Without means to enforce the laws, and an infrustructure to provide necessities to the people, methods of income for the people (for example oil), and needed humantarian aid (food, medicine, etc).... this change means nothing.

What's needed is a plan to get progress rebuilding to go faster. Perhaps the UN is the right method.

IMHO What's also needed is to get Iraqi's trained and working to do it themselves more. Just like how FDR fought the great depression. A series of government jobs (dams, bridges, etc) to keep people working, making money, and expanding the country.

[thunderous_funker]

"Our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been an overwhelming success. Which is why today we are announcing a complete and total change in our policies and management of both....."



P.S. that is an invented quote.....

[eklipse]

I'm with macvillage, Bush talks 'overhaul' but I'd like to see what he actually means by 'overhaul'. If there are no positive results, this is all just so much talk.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
"Our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have been an overwhelming success. Which is why today we are announcing a complete and total change in our policies and management of both....."



P.S. that is an invented quote.....

Never thought about it like that.



But he is speaking from both sides of his mouth.

He talks about how good things are going... and he announces this.

Which is it?