Bush Administration Power Struggles
The Washington Post ran an article on the rivalry between the State Department and the Pentagon. While relations between Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld are said to be civil, the bureaucratic tussles among mid-level officials are intense. The power struggle has been evident in the disagreements between the State Department and Pentagon over middle east policy. The State Department sought to limit the role of Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. However, he was popular with the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon, so they airlifted him into Iraq a few weeks ago. Disagreements are beginning to arise in the administration’s approach to North Korea as well. The Defense Department pressed to have Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton, a Rumsfeld ally, replace James A. Kelly as the head of a delegation to the upcoming meeting between China, the US and North Korea.

Newt Gingrich, the deposed head of the neo-conservative movement, has weighed in on the dispute. He said the State Department had failed in its efforts to apply diplomatic pressure to persuade Iraq to disarm and comply with U.N. resolutions, and that it is time for "bold, dramatic change" at the department. What Gingrich overlooks is that the policy to persuade Iraq to disarm was doomed to failure by the Pentagon. The UN strategy was never intended to succeed and was scuttled by the failure to give it enough time to work. Gingrich faulted Secretary of State Colin Powell for saying he would visit Syria, which the neo-conservatives in the Bush administration have accused of aiding members of Saddam Hussein's regime. Gingrich also faulted the State Department for advocating a road map for peace in the Middle East. One former official in the administration of President George H.W. Bush said Gingrich's comments were really directed at the president.

In fact, Newt may have a point. Bush has no real foreign policy, so the various factions within his administration are vying for control. The dispute seems to be part of a larger attempt by neo-conservatives to control the direction of the Bush administration. Conservatives complain that the State Department bureaucracy is thwarting President Bush from carrying out a forceful agenda to stop terrorism and confront enemy states. Defense Department has expressed sympathy for Israeli efforts to limit the involvement of the EU and the UN in the Israeli peace process. The Road Map for Peace was drafted by the US, the EU, the UN and Russia. The State Department thinks these parties are important in the process in order to put pressure on the Palestinians.

As part of the neo-conservative movement to gain control of government, we have seen the wholesale relaxation of civil service employment rules in the Department of Homeland Security. With the victory in Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld’s political influence has never been higher, so he is proposing similar rules for the defense department. The plan would replace guaranteed annual raises with a pay-for-performance plan, shift as many as 320,000 military members out of jobs that could be done by civilians in order to make it easier to contract out work, and allow managers to hire and transfer employees without time-consuming competitions. The plan would eliminate the traditional civil service system that emphasizes longevity of service in determining pay. The American Federation of Government Employees argues that relaxing civil service rules could lead to cronyism in hiring and promotions and that agencies lack the funding and evaluation systems needed to execute pay-for-performance plans fairly.

Israel-Palestine
Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen, the incoming Palestinian prime minister, agreed to a compromise in the power struggle over the makeup of a Palestinian cabinet. This is important because the US has refused to publish the Road Map for Peace without a new cabinet. There were compromises on both sides so that the Palestinians can move forward in negotiations with the Israelis. The compromise was reached hours before the midnight deadline on Wednesday. The disagreement centered around Abu Mazen's plan to name his choice as security chief and to crack down on the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. The dispute is a positive sign that democracy is working in Palestine.

In Iraq
Anti-Americanism still runs high. In fact, many papers are running stories stating that U.S. planners are surprised by the strength of Iraqi shi’ites. Hundreds of thousands made a long-banned pilgrimage to the holy city of Karbala yesterday. While they may appreciate the fact that they can make the pilgrimage, they are still very keen for the U.S. to leave Iraq as soon as possible. "It is a complex equation, and the U.S. government is ill-equipped to figure out how this is going to shake out," a State Department official said. U.S. intelligence reports reaching top officials throughout the government this week said the Shi’ites appear to be much more organized than was thought. The US will try to counter shi’a fundamentalism by finding moderate clerics and moving them into positions of influence. However, the anti-American shi’ites recognize the pro-western clerics, many of whom were exiled and returned recently. The death of Abdul Majid Khoei, a pro-American cleric who was stabbed to death in Najaf a couple of weeks ago, shows the limits of the American plan. These same anti-American shi’ites demanded the exile of Ayatollah Ali Sistani from Najaf last week. Sistani is considered Iraq’s top shi’a cleric

Thomas Friedman
Thomas Friedman has a new column, this time about removing Yassir Arafat and with a warning to the neo-conservatives who oppose peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

The main point of his Op-ed piece is this:
What does America want in Iraq? It wants the emergence of an Iraqi political center, of both parties and politicians, who are authentically Iraqi, authentically nationalist and respectful of Islam — but with a progressive, modernizing agenda and a willingness to work with the U.S. to transform Iraq. In the near future — once Iraqi politics really resume — the ability of any Iraqi politician to be openly pro-U.S. will be restricted if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict burns on and the Bush team is seen as siding only with Ariel Sharon and doing nothing to defuse the situation. In that context, pro-U.S. Iraqi politicians will be delegitimized, in both Iraq and the Arab world, as pro-Sharon stooges. As a result, we will either end up with Iraqis who are not legitimate or Iraqis who, like so many other Arab leaders today, can only cooperate with us in secret. Note to neo-cons: If you care about the outcome in Iraq, you should be for an energized peace process — one that draws redlines for both Israelis and Palestinians and moves them both toward an interim deal..