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 AffairsI have a hard time getting upset about this since 1) I didn't think Negroponte was a good choice for ambassador to Iraq and 2) I think that the position of National Intelligence Director is a complete sham. That said, I think your point is spot on. Without some stability at the top ... well, at the very least that can breed inefficiency. And of course many worse things than inefficiency can result from people are constantly being reshuffled, new norms and directives come down, constantly changing assignments and organizational shifts, etc.
Posted by: Armand at February 18, 2005 12:34 PM | PERMALINKThat's sort of my take. The Iraq post is so critically important to attempts to reduce the insurgency and really help that country that the revolving door aspect of leadership there can't possibly be a good sign. This Kevin Drum/Calpundit post argues that the revolving door aspect is a sign that things are awful in Iraq, and that no one wants to be associated with it for long. That may be right, but that doesn't change my overall point.
Posted by: baltar at February 18, 2005 01:08 PM | PERMALINK