Posted on 09/17/2006 10:52:16 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
After the fall of Saddam Hussein's government in April 2003, the opportunity to participate in the U.S.-led effort to reconstruct Iraq attracted all manner of Americans -- restless professionals, Arabic-speaking academics, development specialists and war-zone adventurers. But before they could go to Baghdad, they had to get past Jim O'Beirne's office in the Pentagon.
To pass muster with O'Beirne, a political appointee who screens prospective political appointees for Defense Department posts, applicants didn't need to be experts in the Middle East or in post-conflict reconstruction. What seemed most important was loyalty to the Bush administration.
(snip)
Interviews with scores of former CPA personnel over the past two years depict an organization that was dominated -- and ultimately hobbled -- by administration ideologues.
"We didn't tap -- and it should have started from the White House on down -- just didn't tap the right people to do this job," said Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."
(snip)
By the time Bremer departed in June 2004, Iraq was in a precarious state. The Iraqi army, which had been dissolved and refashioned by the CPA, was one-third the size he had pledged it would be. Seventy percent of police officers had not been screened or trained. Electricity generation was far below what Bremer had promised to achieve.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
But does this book reflect the truth? And can we discuss possible failings without it turning into a political brawl (meaning will democrats simply grab this and use it to bash republicans again, instead of learning from it)?
Golly, a leading MSM newspaper bitching about how the Bush administration has handled Iraq! Who'da thunk it??
Nice name, Rajiv.
Everyone knows that the Demons are far less corrupt. Prez's like Clowntoon never played political favorites. (sarc off)
Yeah. What we should have had is a bunch of malcontents who hate the boss. That's apparently the WaPo Way.
The obvious slant of the author is to insinuate that political loyalty/affiliation was the predominant or only criterion on which applicants were screened. I find it difficult to believe that qualifications and enthusiasm were not taken into account. Sure, some young folks with little experience probably were pegged, but really, how many people had experience that was relevant to the mission in Iraq at the time? Had I been the guy doing the screening, I probably would have placed greater weight upon new people, new ideas, young enthusiasm, and so on, just as the author insinuates that O'Beirne did.
In my opinion, our actions in Iraq, especially Baghdad, were totally incoherent and lacking any central direction in 2003. Rules regarding law and order varied from sector to sector throughout Baghdad because junior officers were establishing order with little to no guidance from their higher headquarters. Those were the youngest and most inexperienced officers on the battlefield, but they were the ones working to unscrew the situation while higher ups sat back in the palaces and in the compounds at Baghdad International Airport, smoking cigars, doing photo ops, and patting each other on the back for having so thoroughly defeated a conventional Arab military force. Age and experience sure paid off there, didn't it? I'll take a bunch of young, enthusiastic guys over a bunch of fossilized entrenched bureaucrats anyday.
I wish they'd done more of this.
Seems to me this guy took events, slapped his own preconceived opinions on them and claim it as "Fact".
Seem pretty obvious just another Mikey Moore style hit piece where facts are misrepresented or only half reported to present a fraudulent view. East to spot these.
Life is a bell curve, when ever anything falls WAY over onto one end or the other it is more about propaganda then fact.
This sounds like a cart full of manure.
In the first place, does anyone think clinton didn't award contracts to his friends and donors? Anyone? Did the ComPost ever object when he did it?
In the second place, does anyone believe that the real experts in training the Iraqi army, "a tough tough job," are to be found among the liberals? Maybe at the Pacifica Institute? or on Teddy Kennedy's staff?
As we often had to point out at the time, Halliburton is the only outfit that could do many of the jobs that needed to be done, and army trainers are likelier to be found among conservative patriots than liberal refuseniks.
State and the CIA are rife with communist-sympathizers- they're the ones behind the undoing of Nixon.
The instinct to get sympathetic people on the ground was right, even if the execution was flawed.
As it is, I don't recall anyone questioning Clinton's hiring practices.
Gee, he should have filled his staff with ideologically suspect Arabic speakers.
It seems to me that, to the extent this story is true, it represents an effort by the Pentagon to minimize the damage caused by the ideological slant of Colin Powell's State Department, which tossed out Jay Garner (the Pentagon's appointee to oversee Iraq's reconstruction) and demonized Ahmad Chalabi (who also had ties to the Pentagon).
President Bush never, ever should have selected Colin Powell for anything.
Ultra mega dittos. Just where did all these supposed "experts" that were passed over according to this clown GET their experience rebuilding a Arab state after 40 years of repressive one man rule?
So we were suppose to tap the same Leftist elitist from the UN who screwed up everything they have touched for Iraq?
"Experience" in these matters often means "We are really really good at screwing up the same way as often as the Americans will pay for it"
Frederick Smith, who served as the deputy director of the CPA's Washington office. "It was a tough, tough job. Instead we got people who went out there because of their political leanings."
Uh, yeah Frederick. I guess we should have sent a bunch of pansy a$$, I feel your pain, sit around and sing Kumbaya, bleeding heart, mush headed liberal DEMOCRATS from the ranks of the DU and Daily Kos - all who last I checked, just happen to HATE Bush, to do that "tough, tough job".
Yeah that would have worked out much better. 'Peace Mom' Cindy 'Poop For Brains' could have been Activities Director and Code Pink volunteers could have screened new Army recruits.
Where was WaPo when Clinton fired EVERY fed atty nationwide?
vaudine
> In the first place, does anyone think clinton didn't award contracts to his friends and donors? Anyone? Did the ComPost ever object when he did it?
Is something OK because Clinton got away with it?
> In the second place, does anyone believe that the real experts in training the Iraqi army, "a tough tough job," are to be found among the liberals? Maybe at the Pacifica Institute? or on Teddy Kennedy's staff?
I'm pretty sure there was a competent conservative out there to help rebuild the Iraqi stock exchange, at least someone more qualified than a 24 year old real estate agent with no background in finance.
Just sayin'.
It was that example that really got to me. If it is true, it certainly sounds like we didn't do everything we could to try to make this work.
I remember being upset when Garner was yanked, I believe because the state department thought we needed a more "civilian" look -- which got us Bremer.
How much of this was state department interference? After all, most foreign state department posts seem to be filled through political cronyism.
No, I'm not saying they did a perfect job. I'm just wondering why the press only runs this kind of story when Republicans are involved.
I hate to say it, but when did the government bureaucracy ever come up with the best people to do the job, except occasionally? It doesn't excuse them, but in a massive government operation like this, mistakes are bound to be made.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
Bush has appointed cronies here and there in his administration. But compared to clinton's cabinet, which only included one competent member during his whole eight years in office, Bush has done relatively well. (That one was Rubin, who was corrupt but at least competent.)
Moreover, I'm the one who has constantly criticized him in the forum for not doing more to weed out the clintonoids at high levels in the CIA, FBI and elsewhere, which are clearly the worst personnel problem.
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.