Perhaps John Negroponte is the best man for the "Intelligence Czar" job. I won't hold my breath (he has no background in creating and managing intelligence, though he is clearly a consumer of it).
It should also be noted that he was not the first choice (according to the NYT). Both Robert Gates (a former head of the CIA) and William Barr (a former Attorney General) turned down the job. Hence, Bush was forced to find someone to fill a critical position.
My biggest objection to this is what it does to the efforts in Iraq to rebuild and stabilize the country. The war started 23 months ago. In those 23 months, the American in charge of getting Iraq back on its feet has changed many times: Garner (3 months), Bremer (12 months), and then Negroponte (8 months). Now someone new will step in.
What about continuity? I think it would take some months to understand the job, the people, the disputes and the whole ball of wax. No person can be effective without basic knowledge of the situation, and Iraq is a more complicated place than most. Hence, it looks to me like just when someone might actually be getting a handle on the place, they are yanked out.
Is it any wonder that there are accounting irregularities, failed projects, and general problems?Posted by baltar at February 18, 2005 11:48 AM | TrackBack | Posted to International Affairs