| Submit your comments on this article | ||||
| Home Front | ||||
| Gingrich on Powell | ||||
| 2003-04-23 | ||||
| State and Defense Department bickering over who should direct U.S. foreign policy, particularly the Iraq reconstruction effort, has one former lawmaker demanding the diplomatic corps get a major overhaul. "The last seven months have involved six months of diplomatic failure and one month of military success. The first days after military victory indicate the pattern of diplomatic failure is beginning once again and threatens to undo the effects of military victory," Newt Gingrich told an audience at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. He gets to the point in the next paragraph. Much of Gingrich's rhetoric was aimed at the Near East Bureau of the State Department. Among the complaints, Gingrich blasted Powell for planning a trip to Syria, working with Russia, the European Union and the United Nations on a Middle East peace road map, and focusing on prewar weapons inspections rather than regime change. Gingrich said approving Hans Blix as chief U.N. weapons inspector was a mistake made "even though he was clearly opposed to war and determined to buy time and find excuses for Saddam Hussein."
Does Newty have a book coming out soon, or something? "Newt stepped in it. He served the country very well when he was happily retired," the official said. I almost forgot that I kinda liked Newt. Now I know why I forgot.
| ||||
| Posted by:Mike N. |
| #11 They rang in the Newtster because nobody in the administration wanted to be seen as beating up on Powell. Newt doesn't care, he'll savage ANYBODY... Secretary Powell should've cleaned house on his own, quietly, when he was appointed. Now they have to bring in the exterminator to get rid of the cockroaches. |
| Posted by: mojo 2003-04-23 15:59:00 |
| #10 Somewhat OT, but being a fan of Powells, I recall an interview when he first came into the State Department, one of the cultural issues he addressed was working hours; he said something to the effect of "... don't bother coming and working long weekend hours just to impress me, because you won't find me here. A well rounded effective employee should be able to have a life and a family outside of this job, or they are in the wrong line of work." I wonder if any readers know if this is still true, (post 9-11) and could comment what is the similar culture at the 5 sided building under Rumsfeld. Wondering if the Pentagon workers consider the State Department workers slackers? |
| Posted by: Capsu78 2003-04-23 15:19:29 |
| #9 I took the latest Foreign Service Written Exam on 4-12. I'll find out in July if I passed. If I did, I'll have the "oral assessment" in October probably. That, at least, was the process in 2002 when I did pass the FSWE, but not the oral. If I had passed that, I would have waited 3-6 months for a spot to open up. It seems to be a bit too long of a process if America is trying to get good people into the Dept. to promote the country's interests. Showing my age, I took the FSWE in 1978 (didn't pass) when a senior in college. THAT was equivalent to an ACT/SAT type experience. Lots of questions on culture, math, reading. If you have done one of those tests, you know what I'm talking about. The current FSWE's have been so dumbed down, it should not be a challenge to most smart Rantburg types to pass; or my son, for example, who is a well-read high school senior. The oral assessment really hasn't changed that much over the years based on info from friends of mine who went through the process in the 1980's. Maybe this is where State should look at tweaking its system. I was asked, for example, at the end of the day if I had any questions concerning the oral, and when I did, (I just wanted to know the areas where I could improve),I was told that question could not be answered since it would put me at an advantage if I ever had the oral assessment again. Huh? The culture within Foggy Bottom, I think, promotes not rocking the boat, "stability", in other words. Stability often becomes "stagnation". This creeps into State's love for coddling the Saudis, Egyptian, etc. OTOH, diplomats have to be "agents of change" according to State/USAID literature. A contradiction. The stress on State's website is that its Foreign Service Officers need to look like America. Fine, I'm against lilly-white institutions, too. But why dumb down the test to ensure a pool of good candidates? This is not a slap at minorities State is trying to hire, but I thought State's mission was to promote the US interests abroad and we need the best to accomplish that, not just those who might be qualified. Find the brilliant ones instead. There are a lot of good people at State; you just have to wonder if they're too worried about promotions/careers and making sure that personnel numbers/quotas add up for self-preservation purposes. They need to understand that the world has changed in the last 18 months and the current accepted PC paradigms that are part and parcel of State have to go. Tough people with a soft side would fit the bill. Hard to find, but they're out there. If this review of the hiring process is part of what Gingrich had in mind, OK. Otherwise, Powell's being burned by the French has made Colin an Axil of Weasel opponent. Remember, he knows what a chain of command structure is and he works for GWB. It's up to the president to direct him/State. |
| Posted by: Michael 2003-04-23 14:47:19 |
| #8 Old Patriot is right: compare Rumsfeld at the Pentagon to Powell at State. Until we hear squeals of pain from Foggy Bottom bureaucrats (probably expressed as the diplo-equivalent of "he arrogantly didn't send enough troops!") we know Powell's not doing his institutional job, no matter what his personal accomplishments. |
| Posted by: someone 2003-04-23 14:25:29 |
| #7 I disagree with you, AP. This isn't about Powell, it's about the far-left, Harvard School of International Relations dominiated State Department. State has, and pushes, its own agenda, regardless of who's in the White House. The current situation isn't the first time they've backed the wrong team - they have a habit of it. I think what Gingrich is saying is that Powell needs to let the bureaucracy know who's boss, and if some people don't accept that, they need to get their resume up to date. I worked in Washington for a year back in the early 1980's. I worked at NPIC, the CIA's imagery intelligence center (Army, Navy, and Air Force also have a section, along with the Defense Intelligence Agency). State had their own intelligence center. We were constantly trying to clean up the mess from inaccurate, often downright misleading reports from State. This isn't anything new - it's been going on since about 1935. It's about time someone did something to put an end to the crap. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-23 14:01:10 |
| #6 I hate bloody grandstanding, especially by congressmen or ex-congressmen. Anybody with half a brain can see the purpose of Powell's visit to Damascus. It is just like his visit to Perv in Pakistan before the Afghan war. You want to send the big message, you send the big guy. These grandstanders remind me of a line in the movie "Murphy's War" when the barge owner says to Murphy something like, "I'm a little man and you're a little man. The difference is is that I know it." |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2003-04-23 12:36:49 |
| #5 All we need is the old black-sheep has-been to come out and start criticizing he administration. His ego is colossal. Doesn't he know when to stay out of things??? Hey Newt - you blew your chance. SHUT IT! |
| Posted by: matinum 2003-04-23 12:35:17 |
| #4 "Too bad that you now know why you forgot that you kinda liked Newt." Larry, Dammit! Don't do that! You're gonna make me pee my pants. Thanks a pantload I might say. Allow me to explain that a little. I like what Newt is saying, and much of what he has said in the past. It's just that I don't like him enough to keep him at the front of short memory. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2003-04-23 12:34:05 |
| #3 Surprised that you've not noted Charles Krauthammer's part in the AEI session. An excellent duo (Charles & Newt) - they did a truly superb job. That behind-the-scenes "senior administration official" was a State Dept. staffer. Of course that crew would take the anti-Newt/Krauthammer position. But the State Dept. has been systematically dancing and working to its own "we know better than everyone" tune for far too long. Too bad that you now now know why you forgot that you kinda liked Newt. |
| Posted by: Larry 2003-04-23 12:03:09 |
| #2 Bravo to Newt! No doubt he's frying a bigger fish (or carrying someone else's water or abusing some other metaphor), but these things ought to be said! Our Department of State has been bought and paid for by the Saudi's for years! (sometimes it's described as clientitus -- I prefer to believe in baser motives). It's hatred of Chalabi is legendary and can only be explained by the Saudi's fear of the man. If Chalabi brings a breath of freedom and effective self government to Iraq, the house of Saud is doomed! (as the semi-fair Jeananne would say). [Would a pessimist describe her as "slightly scuzzy"]. I digress. State needs to be shaken up. I'm just not sure what Newt's game is. A shot against Powell in 2008? Plans to replace Powell with Rice in 2004? I dunno |
| Posted by: Norman Rogers 2003-04-23 11:42:13 |
| #1 I never liked Newt before but I may be starting to like him now. At least his positions regarding Syria and the State Department are dead on target. Powell and Bush would be well advised to consider his comments. |
| Posted by: Scooter McGruder 2003-04-23 11:36:05 |