■"New Bush Cabinet Seen as Move For More Harmony and Control: Trusted Advisers Are Placed in Important Posts," by David E. Sanger and Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 17 November 2004, p. A1.
■"Bush's Tutor and Disciple: Condoleezza Rice," by Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, 17 November 2004, p. A1.
■"Chief of C.I.A. Tells His Staff To Back Bush," by Douglas Jehl, New York Times, 17 November 2004, p. A1.
■"From Colin to Condoleezza: A baton is passed at State, but will things get any better?" op-ed by Eliot A. Cohen, Wall Street Journal, 17 November 2004, p. A16.
■"Bush Taps Loyalists for Cabinet: Nominations Suggest White House Seeks Even Tighter Reins," by Carla Anne Robbins and Greg Hitt, Wall Street Journal, 17 November 2004, p. A4.
■"From Behind the Scenes to Stage Front: A Wider Role Ahead For a Loyal Confidante," by Todd S. Purdum, New York Times, 16 November 2004, p. A1.
■"President Signals No Major Shift In Foreign Policy," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 7 November 2004, p. A1.
All the news coming out of the White House since the election speaks to a steady-the-course approach on foreign policy. Maybe some better stylistics, but those are likely to involve everyone singing off the same sheet of music in greater synchronization than anything else.
Condi Rice brings nothing to the post of Secretary of Defense that Powell didn't have, except the president's ear. But if she runs State like she ran NSC (and as it will continue to be run under her replacement and former deputy Stephen Hadley), then State, much liked the purged CIA, will simply be more responsive to Bush's vision. That's not a bad thing in and of itself, it just means don't expect a lot of internal debate on things.
Bush knows what he wants on his watch: a transformed Middle East. My question is (and itís the basic query that animates my upcoming Esquire piece): what is he willing to pay for that goal? Cause just putting forth a clear and consistent message front to all the allies who distrust us and dislike us probably won't be enough of a stylistic change, and we won't be moving off that dime in Iraq fast enough over the next four years without some allied help to do anything more than flap our gums on Iran and North Korea. So if Bush is serious about transforming the Middle East, he'll need to start considering which deals he can stomach and which ones he cannot, cause he sure as hell isn't going to be able to unilateral his way through the entire cast of the Axis of Evil by the end of his second term.
Don't get me wrong, I think its great we'll now have a SECSTATE that the rest of the world can interact with, confident that when she speaks, it's actually the President talking and not just some personal dissembling. But if we're not prepared to make deals, we get the same no's from allies and foes alike, even if they're offered more politely to our new, no-nonsense Secretary.
Bush needs to decide how successful he wants to be in his second term, of if he's just carrying water for the next GOP president, having burned too many bridges over, and lost too many lives in, the Iraq takedown and subsequently botched occupation.
Oh, and who does virtually all of Washington blame for the botched occupation? That would be the National Security Council for its gross inability to manage the interagency planning process. Good thing we swapped out that job.