The AP reports on a Council on Foreign Relations analysis which takes George Bush to task for postwar planning. The report, which claims that the administration did not consider the extent of nation-building required after the "stunning" military victory over Saddam Hussein, had two interesting people in charge of the "independent" CFR project:

An independent panel headed by two former U.S. national security advisers said Wednesday that chaos in Iraq was due in part to inadequate postwar planning.

Planning for reconstruction should match the serious planning that goes into making war, said the panel headed by Samuel Berger and Brent Scowcroft. Berger was national security adviser to Democratic
President Clinton. Scowcroft held the same post under Republican Presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush but has been critical of the current president's Iraq and Mideast policies.

CFR hired Brent Scowcroft as a sop to the GOP, of course, but anyone who has followed Scowcroft's pronouncements knows that he has bitterly opposed the Iraq War from the very start. Scowcroft still backs the thoroughly-discredited "stability" policy, where the US refrains from pushing democratization in favor of propping up dictators friendly (for the moment) to American interests. The rise of Islamist terrorism notwithstanding, he would far prefer that the thugocracies, kleptocracies, and mullahcracies remain in place, like bugs in amber, in the name of stability and continuity. Scowcroft and his predecessors and followers kept these kinds of governments in place in an extension of Cold War thinking that should have long since passed from the scene -- especially after 9/11.

And Samuel Berger? Better known as Sandy Berger, this Clinton advisor last was seen walking out of the National Archive with highly-classified documents stuffed in his pants. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor last March, but his national-security clearance was suspended for three years. So how could Berger get any access to the material needed to conduct this analysis? Did he wear his special pants again?

The chances of this independent report saying anything meaningful approach zero. Neither person in charge of the CFR analysis could ever be considered "independent", and one has zero credibility on issues of national security any longer. The AP doesn't even bother to mention Berger's current status as a convict without any security clearances. Perhaps they feel it's not relevant to the story, but I suspect many readers would beg to differ. (hat tip: CQ reader Retired Military)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Independent? Really?:

» Prediction Bearing Out from Kloognome.Com
In April I made this prediction: In six months, [Sandy] Berger will be back on TV. He will be described as "Clinton's NSA" and no mention will be made of his guilt. Anyone "tasteless" enough to bring it up will... [Read More]

Tracked on July 27, 2005 8:00 AM