Maybe this is just letting things on the ground sort themselves out? It takes a while to evaluate the present course of action. Maybe letting DoD and DoS fight until they could reach a consensus makes sense in that context?

Everything old is new again. This story recaps Powell's emergence from the grave last fall, when he succeeded in persuading his boss of the wisdom of the UN route.

The Olympian detachment of Pres. Bush can be unnerving, but letting Powell and Rumsfeld slug it out and then declaring a winner seems to be SOP.

Oh, I got sidetracked by current events, and forgot my Really Big Point - any post that starts with a bit of Gore-bashing works for me. I goad my lefty friends that Gore, who might have anticipated a Presidential run in 2000 as early as Nov 1992, had three campaign managers in eighteen months. By way of contrast, Bush had Rove (or vice versa) since 1994.

I think this is a replay of the run-up to the Iraq invasion last year, with Bush giving Powell the ok to give diplomacy a try before he considers other options. I don't think it necessarily means that Bush is committed to the diplomatic route at all costs - just as he wasn't willing to call off the Iraq invasion absent UN approval. Keep in mind that this summer has seen a great deal of diplomatic activity - with Iraq's neighbors, in an effort to keep them from interfering in the reconstruction; with the Road Map; and with Iran, to try to convince Tehran to come clean about its nuclear program. Clearly, most of these efforts have failed, and there is good reason to think that France and Russia will torpedo efforts to adopt a Security Council resolution acceptable to Washington.

It's funny in reading Bush at War, GW comes across as a great manager, really bringing people together, taking in tons of information and making decisions, etc. He is portrayed as someone that is "in charge" and really effective.

As you point out, with respect to activity post-cessation of combat he doesn't really seem to be "in charge".

There was an interesting anecdote posted a while back about GW getting bounced from the Carlyle board. They didn't think he was adding much value. Interesting to see the verdict on him as a business guy (maybe that was a political or otherwise motivated decision who knows?).

Dan, you should probably note that Powell and Myers have called the WaPo article "total fiction" etc. in unusually strong terms. The narrative in the article is kind of hard to believe.

James,

I agree that there are some issues on which it's best to let the key players hash things out until a consensus is reached. Iraq is not one of those situations. The CSIS report that stressed the need for quick fixes on the stability issue -- and came at the DoD's request, mind you -- was published seven weeks ago. That's way too long to let things sort themselves out.

Sorry, I stand by my post.

I dealt with the issue of Bush's management style over a year ago, on a different issue. The bottom line: unaccountable pundits can rant about the importance of decisive leadership, but real-world managers who are actually responsible for the consequences of their decisions (and who know what they're doing) don't go out on a limb based on their gut convictions--they wait until a decision is so clear that it has already effectively been made, then ratify it.

The main reason I think Powell is being honest when he says this article is a total work of fiction is that if it were true, Rumsfeld would have to resign. I would think Bush would also have to fire the Joint Chiefs, because at that point in their career, they should know what the chain of command is and it doesn't run through the Department of State

Rumsfeld spoke a couple of times on Aug. 25 on the need for more non-US troops. At a military town hall meeting, he said:

Q: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, I'm Major Dawn Stay (sp) from Wilford Hall Medical Center. Circumstances are necessitating an expanded role of coalition forces in the Middle East and throughout the globe. What is the likelihood that U.S. military troops would be fighting under the orders of the U.N. or other countries' commanders?

Rumsfeld: The -- I'd say two things. One, we do need coalition forces, and the Department of State and the Department of Defense, John Abizaid, the combatant commanders, and others, the Joint Staff, have been talking to something in excess of 60, 70 countries, about bringing assistance in. I think the number currently is somewhere around 40 countries are participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom in one way or another. We do need international support and assistance. It's a big help. Full stop.

Second question, what is the likelihood of our forces serving under a blue-hatted United Nations leadership? And I think that's not going to happen. (Applause.)

That seems to be the current US position in our proposed UN resolution.

At a press avail that day, he also spoke of a need for more coalition forces, and more Iraqi involvement. They were his first comments, in fact.

So, the bit in the WaPo story that says ""The [Pentagon] civilians had been saying we didn't need any more troops, and the military brass had backed them," a senior administration official said." is wrong, or at least, was wrong as of Aug. 25.

I thought Bill Kristol's comments at the end of the piece were interesting. It looks like some of the conservative pundits are trying to put a little distance between themselves and this debacle.

People close to the administration said the Joint Chiefs and Powell (a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs) did not win a bureaucratic battle as much as Rumsfeld lost one. "Rumsfeld lost credibility with the White House because he screwed up the postwar planning," said William Kristol, a conservative publisher with close ties to the administration. "For five months they let Rumsfeld have his way, and for five months Rumsfeld said everything's fine. He wanted to do the postwar with fewer troops than a lot of people advised, and it turned out to be a mistake."

A bit more on the end-run of the JCS around the civilian leadership. I excerpt Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before a Senate committee on July 29:

Mr. Chairman, in my written statement, I go on at some length about the question of how many troops we need. We can into that in questions. s

But I would like to say something that's very important here, because the most -- we don't need more American troops. At least our commanders don't think we do. What we need most of all -- we need international troops, yes. We need actionable intelligence, yes. But what we need most of all are Iraqis fighting with us. The Iraqi people are part of this coalition, and they need to be armed and trained to participate.

...At this stage, it is impossible to estimate what recover action will cost. What we do know is the resources will come from a variety of resources and the costs of recovery in Iraq need to be shared widely. The international community has a vital interest in successful recovery in Iraq and should share responsibility for it.

The international community has recognized its responsibility to assist us in peacekeeping efforts. Nineteen nations are now providing more than 13,000 troops on the ground, and more are on the way, and we are in active discussions with a number of very important countries, including Turkey and Pakistan, about further possibilities.

Now, I am not pretending that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz led the charge for greater UN involvement. However, the idea of international troops seems to be something they supported, rather than opposed. Delivering the international troops is actually Powell's job at State - if he concludes a UN resolution is needed, well, so be it.

That is my current alternative view. The idea that the JCS and Powell sneaked this UN effort past Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld does not seem to square with their public pronouncements.

If the WaPo is right, either Bush or Powell have to resign. There can't be two presidents and commander-in-chiefs at the same time.