skunk
Jun 9, 2007, 10:08 AM
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article2636169.eceBush U-turn as 'surge' sceptic to oversee war
By David Usborne in New York
Published: 09 June 2007
The White House has sidelined the main proponent of "troop surge" in Iraq in what looks a tacit acceptance that, after several months, the much-vaunted strategy is not working.
Final responsibility for guiding President George Bush on conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been shifted from his National Security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and handed instead to his new war tsar, Lt-Gen Douglas Lute, who has long voiced doubts about the surge.
In a Senate confirmation hearing into his appointment, General Lute revealed that from now on, Mr Hadley would guide the President on "matters outside Iraq and Afghanistan". But he added that Mr Hadley would be his "teammate" on Iraq.
Even so, the news that Mr Hadley has surrendered primacy on Iraq looked like a palace coup coming to light as President Bush was abroad at the G8 meeting, with Mr Hadley. More important are the implications for a possible change of tack on Iraq at the White House.
Among those expressing most surprise was the Democratic senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. "Afghanistan, Iraq and, related to that, Iran are the most critical foreign policy problems we face, and the National Security adviser of the United States has taken his hands off that and given it to you?" he asked. "Then he should be fired. Frankly, if he's not capable of being the individual responsible for those duties and they pass it on to someone else, then why is he there?"
General Lute is well regarded in Washington, and is almost certain to be confirmed in his new post this month. But Democrats took the opportunity to suggest that the creation of his post four years into the conflict was a clear indication of how badly it was going.
When one senator specifically asked him if he would be taking exclusive responsibility for "that chunk of [Hadley's] portfolio" regarding both wars, he said: "I believe that's right. It does not exclude him from also advising, but the responsibilities for advising for Iraq and Afghanistan ... would be mine."
It is hard to think of any modern precedent for a sitting National Security adviser taking a back seat on what are surely the most urgent foreign policy challenges facing the country. There are no chapters in history books of Henry Kissinger taking a holiday from his part in the Vietnam War, for example.
"In my experience, the National Security adviser has always handled the president's priorities and deputies handled what was left," said P J Crowley, a former member of President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, told the Los Angeles Times. "It is an extra difficult job, but this does beg the question, 'What is more important on Steve Hadley's plate than Iraq and Afghanistan'?"
A spokesman for Mr Hadley said while General Lute would "report directly to the President" on Iraq and Afghanistan, he will also "work side by side with Steve Hadley and others at the National Security Council".
Any whiff of musical chairs at the White House always gets instant attention, but more significant is how General Lute's expanding presence influences strategy in Iraq.
At the hearing, the general agreed he had been among those voicing scepticism about the surge. He said he had expressed the view that "a military surge would likely have only temporary and localised effects", without significant parallel progress on ending the political divisions in Iraq.
But the general also offered a gloomy assessment of how far the Iraqi government was likely to get in meeting benchmarks set in Washington for political reconciliation in the country. "I have reservations about just how much leverage we can apply on a system that is not very capable right now," he said. "Where are we today? Not where any of us would like."Hmmm. That didn't last long, did it?
By David Usborne in New York
Published: 09 June 2007
The White House has sidelined the main proponent of "troop surge" in Iraq in what looks a tacit acceptance that, after several months, the much-vaunted strategy is not working.
Final responsibility for guiding President George Bush on conduct of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been shifted from his National Security adviser, Stephen Hadley, and handed instead to his new war tsar, Lt-Gen Douglas Lute, who has long voiced doubts about the surge.
In a Senate confirmation hearing into his appointment, General Lute revealed that from now on, Mr Hadley would guide the President on "matters outside Iraq and Afghanistan". But he added that Mr Hadley would be his "teammate" on Iraq.
Even so, the news that Mr Hadley has surrendered primacy on Iraq looked like a palace coup coming to light as President Bush was abroad at the G8 meeting, with Mr Hadley. More important are the implications for a possible change of tack on Iraq at the White House.
Among those expressing most surprise was the Democratic senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island. "Afghanistan, Iraq and, related to that, Iran are the most critical foreign policy problems we face, and the National Security adviser of the United States has taken his hands off that and given it to you?" he asked. "Then he should be fired. Frankly, if he's not capable of being the individual responsible for those duties and they pass it on to someone else, then why is he there?"
General Lute is well regarded in Washington, and is almost certain to be confirmed in his new post this month. But Democrats took the opportunity to suggest that the creation of his post four years into the conflict was a clear indication of how badly it was going.
When one senator specifically asked him if he would be taking exclusive responsibility for "that chunk of [Hadley's] portfolio" regarding both wars, he said: "I believe that's right. It does not exclude him from also advising, but the responsibilities for advising for Iraq and Afghanistan ... would be mine."
It is hard to think of any modern precedent for a sitting National Security adviser taking a back seat on what are surely the most urgent foreign policy challenges facing the country. There are no chapters in history books of Henry Kissinger taking a holiday from his part in the Vietnam War, for example.
"In my experience, the National Security adviser has always handled the president's priorities and deputies handled what was left," said P J Crowley, a former member of President Bill Clinton's National Security Council, told the Los Angeles Times. "It is an extra difficult job, but this does beg the question, 'What is more important on Steve Hadley's plate than Iraq and Afghanistan'?"
A spokesman for Mr Hadley said while General Lute would "report directly to the President" on Iraq and Afghanistan, he will also "work side by side with Steve Hadley and others at the National Security Council".
Any whiff of musical chairs at the White House always gets instant attention, but more significant is how General Lute's expanding presence influences strategy in Iraq.
At the hearing, the general agreed he had been among those voicing scepticism about the surge. He said he had expressed the view that "a military surge would likely have only temporary and localised effects", without significant parallel progress on ending the political divisions in Iraq.
But the general also offered a gloomy assessment of how far the Iraqi government was likely to get in meeting benchmarks set in Washington for political reconciliation in the country. "I have reservations about just how much leverage we can apply on a system that is not very capable right now," he said. "Where are we today? Not where any of us would like."Hmmm. That didn't last long, did it?
