Laying on a Brag -- Baker to Head Up Iraqi Reconstruction

I said the following in a the discussion thread of my post titled "U.S. Military -- Back to the Future!"

Rumsfeld's malign influence in Iraq is his resistance to establishing a McArthur-like "Shoganate" that is directly responsible to the President. This is what we did with both Japan and Germany.

These "Governors-General" were overseen by the Joint Chiefs for day-to-day policy and operations questions.

Rumsfeld's problem is that he does not trust the Joint Chiefs to do this job and won't let anyone else do it.

This issue can only be resolved by President Bush.

Bush should appoint a Governor-General answerable to him and establish an oversight board made up of Jim Baker as chair , VP Cheney, one or more retired generals Rummie trusts, and a senior level State Department official Collen Powell trusts.

This would answer Bush's problems of getting them mission done without to much impact on his limited span of control.

Well, now it looks like the Bushies have taken at least part of my advice. The Washington Post had an article titled "White House Wants Baker to Head Iraq Reconstruction" that said the following:

The White House hopes to persuade former secretary of state James A. Baker III to take charge of the physical and economic reconstruction of Iraq as part of a broad restructuring of post-war efforts, administration sources said today.

Under the plan, L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, would focus on rebuilding the country's political system. The new structure is still in the discussion stages, and a source close to Baker said he has not accepted the job.

The sources said one hurdle is determining whether Baker or Bremer would have the final word, and they said that question is unresolved. The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University referred questions to Baker's law firm, Baker Botts LLP in Houston. Baker did not immediately return a telephone message seeking comment.

The negotiations reflect a growing realization within the administration that the post-war plan was inadequate and that simple patience, the White House's initial prescription, will not do. Bremer said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that progress has been made in restoring services and creating a government, but he said the effort could last for years.

This is a step in the right direction, but the Bush Administration still needs to have a "the buck stops here" Governor-General and at 73, I don't think Baker has the physical vigor to be "the one." Given that limitation, his role in this must be that of oversight and not hands on management. Color me unsurprised at that particular turn of events, as reader Tom Holsinger said at the time:

Trent's point about Rumsfeld is that his empire-building is perpetuating disorder in Iraq, and delaying its reconstruction, not that Rumsfeld is responsible for creating the disorder. Iraq caused the disorder.

We need one man in charge to speed the recovery. Rumsfeld and just about every other faction don't want one man in charge unless it's their guy and they own him, i.e., they don't want one guy in charge. This is how power games work, and it isn't intentional.

President Franklin Roosevelt had the same problem with the economy/military production in World War Two, and things just muddled through until FDR finally put one of his best and most trusted operatives, Jimmy Byrnes, in charge.

An alternative is to use someone with less actual independent power (though apparent total idependent power) who is subject to close supervision by a trusted committee. Trent notes that this was done in Japan after World War Two, and named potential members of such a committee for Iraq.

Both should work, but both require President Bush to make a command decision here, and he don'wanna. The person to blame is him.

Dubya hasn't figures out who he wants to be the one yet, so he is putting Baker as a trusted family retainer there as his personal eyes until he does.