Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (136892)	6/17/2004 4:22:10 PM
From: Rascal	Respond to of 281500

It's the contracts, stupid. And accounts payable and the preferred vendor list a/k/a The PCO! As predicted long ago by an astute poster: With the handover of Iraqi "sovereignty" just two weeks away, there's no shortage of open questions about what exactly our behind-the-scenes role in Iraq will be. One particularly pressing question has been whether the interagency knife-fight between the State and Defense Departments over Iraq will finally draw to a close. You'll remember that the Pentagon essentially junked about a year's worth of laborious preparatory work for the occupation prepared at Foggy Bottom, and famously told the first U.S. proconsul, Jay Garner, that he couldn't hire its architect, Tom Warrick. Failures and recriminations have compounded and intensified ever since -- sometimes fairly, sometimes not. Not surprisingly, the Bush administration has tried to present a united front going into the post-June 30 phase, when our political efforts will be housed in a new U.S. embassy, under the control of the Department of State. At a forum last month at the U.S. Institute of Peace, the leaders of the State and Defense transition teams, Ambassador Francis Ricciardone and retired General Mick Kicklighter, exchanged the sort of photogenic handshake usually reserved for when belligerents mark the formal end of hostilities. But it looks more like the conflict is about to enter its guerilla phase. Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists has obtained a copy of the National Security Presidential Directive that governs the structure of our future presence in Iraq. (Warning: PDF.) Signed on May 11 by President Bush, it ensures that the Defense Department will have a significant foothold in the embassy. Sure, it specifies that The Secretary of State shall be responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of all assistance for Iraq. But "all" doesn't exactly mean "all." Leave aside the fact that Commander, USCENTCOM, under the authority, direction and control of the Secretary of Defense, shall continue to be responsible for U.S. efforts with respect to security and military operations in Iraq. In all activities, the Chief of Mission and Commander, USCENTCOM shall ensure the closest cooperation and mutual support. The Centcom-Embassy structural conflict is one we all expected, and, given our maintenance of over 138,000 troops in Iraq, can't really be avoided. A few paragraphs later in the NSPD, however, there's something else: I also establish ... a temporary organization within the Department of Defense to be called the Project and Contracting Office (PCO) to provide acquisition and project management support with respect to activities in Iraq, as requested by the Secretary of State and heads of other Departments and agencies. The Secretary of Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State shall select a Director for PCO. PCO personnel in Iraq shall be permanently or temporarily assigned under Chief of Mission authority. PCO shall provide acquisition and project management support to the Chief of Mission. PCO's service may include engineering, auditing, and other contract-related authorities. That's all the NSPD says about this new office. The PCO looks to be the successor organization to the Program Management Office, the Pentagon's contracting office within the Coalition Provisional Authority. Clearly the Pentagon will play a role in overseeing the implementation of contractor projects, and that's no trivial matter: the $18.4 billion we're spending in Iraq is supposed to be an important aspect of our post-June 30 influence. But this is surely about more than just the reconstruction contracts. Remember that there are "security"-related contracts issued for Iraq as well--just ask Virginia-based CACI International, who sent employee Steven A. Stefanowicz to Abu Ghraib. And that "other contract-related authorities" responsibility designated to the PCO seems sufficiently broad to allow the PCO chief--chosen by Donald Rumsfeld, with input from Colin Powell--to exercise it as he sees fit. There's not a whole lot that's clear here, but it certainly seems like the NSPD doesn't give the State and Defense Departments the same sheet of music to sing from. Plus ca change... talkingpointsmemo.com Rascal @JustLikeABankMerger.com

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (136892)	6/17/2004 5:45:36 PM
From: Lou Weed	Respond to of 281500

<<I suspect that many of us who are capable of seeing both sides of an issue, are equally proud of the fact that we've never prematurely jumped and landed in the bushes on either side of the trail that leads through the wilderness of silly ideas.>> Nicely put.......I think a lot of why this "bi-polarness" is prevalent here in the US comes down to the fact that it is a bipartisan political system. If you're a Republican then the bad guys are Dems and vice-versa. You've really got no other bad guy to poke a stick at. With most western democracies you get a plethera of parties in the system, the advantage being that you broaden the system and foster more of a culture of tolerance for more diverse views. Of course the main disadvantage is it leads to less stable govts. as a coalition can collapse due to idealistic differences on any variety of issues. The point being though that it at least brings to light different views on a subject other than A or B. This thread is a fine example of the "sticktuitiveness" (sp?) of the actions of whatever side of the good guy / bad guy game you're on. What fascinates me is the rationalizations that the folks supporting the current admin. have to go to to maintain their support for their belief/ideals. I can guarantee you that if the shoe was on the other foot i.e. if Clinton was doing just what GW is doing now, they would all want his head on a platter. Objectivity seems to fly out the window when you take a side and stick to it no matter what. MON.