Powell and Joint Chiefs Nudged Bush* Toward U.N.

[kskiska]

By Dana Milbank and Thomas E. Ricks
Thursday, September 4, 2003; Page A01

On Tuesday, President Bush's first day back in the West Wing after a month at his ranch, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell walked into the Oval Office to present something close to a fait accompli.

In what was billed as a routine session, Powell told Bush that they had to go to the United Nations with a resolution seeking a U.N.-sanctioned military force in Iraq -- something the administration had resisted for nearly five months. Powell, whose department had long favored such an action, informed the commander in chief that the military brass supported the State Department's position despite resistance by the Pentagon's civilian leadership. Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, whose office had been slow to embrace the U.N. resolution, quickly agreed, according to administration officials who described the episode.

Thus was a long and high-stakes bureaucratic struggle resolved, with the combined clout of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the State Department persuading a reluctant White House that the administration's Iraq occupation policy, devised by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, simply was not working.

(snip)

For an administration that prides itself on centralized, top-down control, the decision to change course in Iraq was uncharacteristically loose and decentralized. As described by officials in the White House, State Department and Pentagon, the White House was the last to sign on to the new approach devised by the soldiers and the diplomats. "The civilians had been saying we didn't need any more troops, and the military brass had backed them," a senior administration official said. "Powell's a smart guy, and he knew that as soon as he had the brass behind him, that is very tough to ignore."

For months, Rumsfeld and his civilian aides had successfully resisted wishes of the State Department and the British government for U.N. help, arguing that U.S. troops, and foreign troops assembled outside U.N. authority, could get the job done. But this time was different, because the situation in Iraq made Rumsfeld's view look increasingly doubtful to the White House. A wave of attacks -- at the Jordanian Embassy, U.N. headquarters and Najaf -- convinced many officials that there were not enough U.S. troops in Iraq to maintain order. Nor were there enough foreign troops or American reserves to replace 40,000 troops Rumsfeld planned to bring home.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20085-2003Sep3.html

[Maple]

1. Sounds like Rumsfeld

lost that round...which may explain the earlier stories about Powell leaving.

Now it's just a 'simple' matter of convincing the UN. :D

[disgruntella]

2. sad, sad, sad

Exactly how many people on both sides had to die before these people decided to quit placating Rumsfeld? That man has a special seat reserved for him in hell...

[grytpype]

3. I love it! Read this part:

On Tuesday, President Bush's first day back in the West Wing after a month at his ranch, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell walked into the Oval Office to present something close to a fait accompli.

In what was billed as a routine session, Powell told Bush that they had to go to the United Nations with a resolution seeking a U.N.-sanctioned military force in Iraq -- something the administration had resisted for nearly five months. Powell, whose department had long favored such an action, informed the commander in chief that the military brass supported the State Department's position despite resistance by the Pentagon's civilian leadership. Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, whose office had been slow to embrace the U.N. resolution, quickly agreed, according to administration officials who described the episode.

---

Looks like President Junior was at the kiddie table when the grownups made the decision to go begging to the "irrelevant" UN.

[Ouabache]

4. And how much has this wrongful course built on LIES cost us ?

in lives, in tax-payer money.

How much has it cost us on the world stage, even if the "*irrelevant*" UN could now be persuaded to provide cover for this diplomatic and military disaster ? Not that they will.

Will Rumsfeld and the PNAC crowd over at the DOD be resigning now ?
They should be. So should Rice, she was whoring for this war all along now as well.

[wabeewoman]

5. What does this mean?

Bush's national security officials, such as Rice and deputy Stephen J. Hadley, were aware of the long-standing disagreement on a United Nations role between the State and Defense departments but did not take sides because Powell was keeping his powder dry. Interesting way to put it but what exactly does it mean?