Ambassador Ryan Crocker stinks

I'm working on a Pakistan piece, but it is just growing and growing. I might have to do it in two or three pieces. We'll see.

In the mean time, chew on this one: "Also Thursday, US Ambassador Ryan Crocker said increased US troop strength had brought down violence, but it was impossible to rush political reconciliation..." This is Ryan Crocker, the US Ambassador to Iraq. This is the guy who, along with Gen. Dave Petraeus, is going to ask for more time for the "surge" in Iraq to work when they come to DC in September to give the assessment that is, or at least was, supposed to be when we know if Iraq can be salvaged.

Anyway, this is not Crocker's first job. Although he is a "GWOT guy" (Global War On Terror) as we call them, he has done other things, too. In fact, Ambassador Crocker was just in charge of the US Embassy in, of all places, Pakistan. Is there another place on earth that is as sensitive and whose US relations are as poorly managed as those in Pakistan right now? Outside of Iraq, I think not. It is just amazing how they keep putting these incompetents in charge of serious stuff. He is the one who oversaw the "peace" deal in Waziristan with the tribes that has lead to the border areas becoming a haven for Al Qaeda. This guy is a chump and ime will show that Ryan Crocker is just not up to the job.

The Bush Adminstration has had exactly one major foreign policy success in the last two years, the agreements in North Korea. This was not due to anyone in Washington, but to the efforts and hard work of my old friend Chris Hill, who was a big part of settling the Balkans. And where is Hill now? Mopping up in East Asia. Amazing. Anyway, look for Chris to have a major role in the coming Democratic administration. He's an old friend of the Secretary of State in waiting, Richard Holbrooke, and given his accomplishments, skill and success at working for both Democrats and Republicans, I would expect him to be Holbrooke's number two at State. You heard it here first.

More Iraq: I read today in the NY Times that the government of Iraq is refusing to take over the infrastructure projects paid for by US taxpayers. Now, I don't much about a lot of things, and there are just a few things about which I know a little tiny bit, but when it comes to working infrastructure projects in post-conflict and post-disaster situations, I know more than your average bear. There are three things you need when you do these sorts of projects: the consent of the community where they are going in, (better to have their active participation, best is to have their outright cooperation and a monetary contribution), a plan for operation once it is completed, including people with the proper maintenance skills and a way to pay for it, and a government or private entity with the proper funding and support from the community and long term out look to ensure that the thing will be taken care of in the long term.

I know this. My colleagues in the business know this. Only one of those people was in Iraq. None of the rest of us got jobs in Iraq. Those went to 25 year old Republicans from Texas who went with no experience, no understanding of the local conditions and no desire to learn. This is the result.