Political fallout over Iraq rattling US
By Guy Dinmore in Washington
Published: June 24 2003 21:39 | Last Updated: June 24 2003 21:39
The political fallout from the unexpected hazards of occupying Iraq is starting to be felt in Washington, although it remains unclear who, if anyone, is to be held responsible for what is seen as inadequate postwar planning.
President George W. Bush runs a hermetic administration that does not look kindly on leaks of unfavourable news. However, according to several advisers and analysts, the White House is directing its displeasure at certain figures in the Defense Department and questioning the"neo-conservative" lobbyists who wish to impose what they call Pax Americana on the world.
The rethink is driven by the main priority of the White House - Mr Bush's re-election next year.
"There is a lot less enthusiasm among the White House political crowd for the neo-con crowd," comments one analyst close to the administration who asks n ot to be named.
Danielle Pletka, of the American Enterprise Institute, rejects suggestions that fellow "neo-cons" are under pressure or that they are questioning their radical policies. But she says there is frustration at the planning and execution of the postwar phase. "There's a lot of unhappiness about that and rightly so."
"From our niche we never thought it would be easy," comments Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for the New American Century, a conservative think-tank that fostered several senior figures before they took office in the Bush administration.
But he adds that some "neo-cons" did believe it would go more smoothly. He also finds fault with the Pentagon for inadequate postwar preparation, although in part for understandable reasons. Diplomacy, he says, frustrated planning procedures and the State Department "was sitting on its hands, pretending this would never happen".
However, he says, the administration had "more of a liberation model in mind than occupation" and there was some "wishful thinking" over the number of troops the Pentagon believed it needed.
Mr Schmitt says Mr Bush should not be faulted for underestimating the importance of Iraq.
"Bush realises this is more crucial for his presidency than anything else," he says, noting the White House stepped in quickly to bring in Paul Bremer as chief administrator and remove Jay Garner.
Another neo-con analyst blamed Condoleezza Rice, the White House national security adviser, for being "too timid on everything". The US is behaving in Iraq "as if there was an inspector-general" on every corner, the analyst says, calling for bolder policies and the confidence to devolve power quickly to Iraqis.
Washington is as rife in rumours as a Middle Eastern bazaar, but there is talk that Ms Rice, as well as Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defence, and Colin Powell, secretary of state, may not remain if Mr Bush wins a second term.
<font color=red>On May 12 William Kristol, neo-con ideologue and editor of the Weekly Standard, wrote that the next battle, though hopefully not military, would be for Iran and on that rested "the future of the Bush doctrine - and, quite possibly, the Bush presidency - and prospects for a safer world".<font color=black>
But, White House advisers say, while the determination to get it right in Iraq remains, there is little appetite for confrontation with Iran or North Korea, at least not before the election. |
