Posted on 03/13/2006 12:35:15 AM PST by neverdem
As the Bush administration's envoy for Iraqi politics, Zalmay Khalilzad had considerable experience dealing with Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein.
Before the war, Mr. Khalilzad was the White House's point man in meetings with Iraqi exile leaders in London and Kurdistan. After the shooting started, he was a key figure at political gatherings in Baghdad and at Tallil air base to begin assembling a new Iraqi leadership.
So when the White House prepared to announce the appointment of L. Paul Bremer III as the chief civilian administrator in Iraq in May 2003, Mr. Khalilzad had every expectation that he would continue in his political role. But just before the announcement, he learned he was not going to Iraq with Mr. Bremer after all.
In fact, his Iraqi political portfolio was gone. The decision surprised not just Mr. Khalilzad, but also Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, according to former State Department officials who asked to remain anonymous because they were talking about private discussions. Why, Mr. Powell wondered, was the Bush administration excluding the one man who knew all the players and was trusted by them?
Mr. Powell phoned Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's national security adviser, for an explanation. Ms. Rice replied she had had nothing to do with the decision. In a White House meeting with Mr. Bush, Mr. Bremer had insisted on sole control of the occupation authority as well as efforts to engineer a new government, Mr. Bremer notes in his book.
Gen. Jay Garner, who had served as the chief civilian administrator in Iraq before Mr. Bremer's appointment, said the decision to exclude Mr. Khalilzad was a mistake. "I thought it was absolutely tragic when Zal got edged out," General Garner said in an interview. "He was damn good as a diplomat and my sense was..."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
"Mr. Khalilzad was the White House's point man in meetings with Iraqi exile leaders in London "
I wonder if the Chalabi flap was an issue.
I remember this quite well. It pissed me off alot at the time, and I knew it was a huge mistake.
The mistakes were both getting rid of Khalilzad and bringing in Bremer.
This is all Monday Morning Quarterbacking..... even if everything happened the way the NY Times or the Democratic Party ( those who supported the war) we'd still be fighting the same insurgency, and the same terrorists would still be there.
It is Monday Morning Quarterbacking, but alot of the mistakes from the articles this morning would have made it so that we would never have dealt with a far weaker insurgency and no Sadr uprising. Khalilzad unlike Bremer would have been smart enough not to let fools like Sadr and Harkim keep militias. Bremer never enforced the law against militias, which was a huge mistake looking back.
Bah, I didm't meant to have that word never in there.
That is probably true, but I think Sadr was gonna do his ' thing' on cue from the Iranians either way. Khalilzad probably would have ended up with a bullet in the back.
You could have stopped right there.
Have you noticed that all these articles are sourced out of the New York Times?
Why even talk about this stuff? They are just doing a full court press to discredit the adminstration, because nothing else they have tried has worked.
Look at the laste 6 or 8 posts on the "mistakes" made during the war. ALL quoting the NYT. I'm beginning to question the motives of those posting these stories. Neverdem has been here a long time - so why is he still pouring over the times?
"Neverdem has been here a long time - so why is he still pouring over the times?"
Ask him.
We talk about it because we care about military strategy and the best way to figure out how to deal with the current situation and future situations like Iran is to look back and evalute past actions.
Almost everyone here supports the war effort and looking back at the conflict is not going to effect that.
If you aren't interested in looking back, that is up to you. But, there is no reason to tell others that they shouldn't be doing it.
I posted this on a related thread.
INSIDE THE COMMAND Second of two articles:
Centcom Behind Closed-Doors
Michael R. Gordon is the chief military correspondent for The New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine lieutenant general, is a former military correspondent for the newspaper. This article is adapted from their book, "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq," which will be released Tuesday by Pantheon Books.
This is part of a series of articles with Bernard E. Trainor as co-author. I've found Bernard E. Trainor to be a straight shooter. If there are serious omissions, I don't doubt that they will be revealed.
That said, it's wise to know what your enemy is reading. It's also astounding to me that they didn't expect resistance to a de facto occupation. It's like WTF over! We can't afford to lose.
I've seen car accidents before, but I can't help slowing down to take a good look at a particularly nasty one.
Good point, jmc1969....I concur.
Bremer made many mistakes following the stunning success of the US Army in military operations. His incompetence led to some negation of the Army's success. Additionally, his disbanding of the Iraqi Army (especially the lower ranks who were not Baathists) created conditions that were favorable for homegrown militias like Al-Sadr's.
The NY Times is a joke of a newspaper. However, even the worst newspaper in the world gets something right once in a while. As FReeper neverdem points out, it may be ueful to look at the authors' credentials too.
This is a good article that discusses a specific (and extremely relevant) aspect of Iraq policy.
Dash to Baghdad Left Top U.S. Generals Divided The co-author of three of these articles is Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine lieutenant general, who I have found to be always credible, IMHO.
Excerpts From National Security Council Report
Why Poor Countries Are Poor - The clues lie on a bumpy road leading to the world’s worst library. It's long, but it had more than a few compliments.
The Battle of Athens, Tennessee The proverbial, must read! I received it yesterday. I Emailed it a little later.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Dash to Baghdad Left Top U.S. Generals Divided
******************************
Clearly the NY Times has an agenda with rolling out all these stories,...keeps the good news off the front pages!
Not sure that I agree with that opinion!
They're pushing their new book which is being released today. It's in a sidebar on the webpage, not the "printpage."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html
Michael R. Gordon is the chief military correspondent for The New York Times, and Bernard E. Trainor, a retired Marine lieutenant general, is a former military correspondent for the newspaper. This article is adapted from their book, "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq," which will be released Tuesday by Pantheon Books.
Thanks for the ping!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.