Khalilzad May Quit Job as US Ambassador to Iraq

-

khalilzad1.jpg
US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad is tired of being undermined by opponents in the White House and by elements of Iraq’s unstable regime end-running him to influence rivals of his in the administration. He is reportedly on the verge of quitting.
Khalilzad’s abrupt departure from the diplomatic scene will worsen the mess in Iraq. Khalilzad is someone who gets the general problems in Iraq — despite his impotence in doing much to solve the problems there — and knows how vital regional deal-making is with many of the players we officially refuse to speak to.
We should be firing Rumsfeld, paralyzing Cheney and his team, and promoting Khalilzad to be the first Muslim Deputy Secretary of State.
TWN‘s nomination for the NEXT US Ambassador to Iraq: RICK SANTORUM. . .because he remains a top Bush loyalist, thinks things are going swimmingly there, and is about to lose his Senate seat.
Santorum in Iraq would be the perfect appointment.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

17 comments on “Khalilzad May Quit Job as US Ambassador to Iraq

  1. Jon Stopa says:

    “What went wrong is Iraq. It was poorly managed, it was not a failure of the neocons, but of the administration to competently build a democracy. I think Rumsfeld has done a horrible job along with other DoD cronies.
    Posted by: TLittle at November 7, 2006 11:36 AM”
    Wrong! Rummy is getting a bum rap. Anyone dumb enough to sign off on the Iraq War is too dumb to do it successfully. Start with Bush.

    Reply

  2. Carroll says:

    Posted by TLittle at November 7, 2006 11:36 AM
    >>>>>>
    Don’t be so shy/sly Mr. Perle, you can use your real name here.

    Reply

  3. farmgirl says:

    TLittle: “Everyone can agree that the Iraq war has been grossly mismanaged. However, to leave now or anytime within the next year when that country is on the brink of civil war would do more harm than good.”
    What evidence do you have, given the ongoing mismanagement, that waiting another year will reduce the likelihood of civil war in Iraq? (Or a *worsening* civil war, if you think they already have one.)
    The US has to get its troops out sometime soon. If we cannot improve the situation, and it will disintegrate whenever we leave, then “stay the course” just means “cut and run,” except with more dead and maimed soldiers. Just like Vietnam.

    Reply

  4. John says:

    “Tehran has clearly made it a part of the country’s foreign policy to have China replace Japan as the No 1 importer of Iranian oil.” China in turn sells Tehran military equipment and manufactured goods and provides money to invest in energy projects. Sounds like a logical partnership to me.
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HK08Ad02.html
    The role for the US in Iran?
    Stand on the sidelines and beat its breasts?
    Now there is a foreign policy!!!

    Reply

  5. TLittle says:

    A nuclear Iran is a threat to the entire world. I argue that if Iran continues its course of action that action will have to be taken. If anyone wants to see a nuclear Iran, then what security are you promoting?
    Some have argued to start making the case now to bomb Iran. I agree with with this, after today we need to focus our attention on Iran and disarm them. When they refuse, we will have to act.
    PNAC in principle, along with the other neocons, have it right in promoting peace through security. It is a paradox that has existed for centuries. What went wrong is Iraq. It was poorly managed, it was not a failure of the neocons, but of the administration to competently build a democracy. I think Rumsfeld has done a horrible job along with other DoD cronies.
    Liberty brings out the best in human existence, when given the choice people will choose what they feel is best. I could get into a lengthy discussion on liberty, freedom, and how it compares to Islamic theocracy, but that is for another time.

    Reply

  6. ted says:

    o, great!
    who to send next if he does resign…jenna?

    Reply

  7. Matthew says:

    Why are we sad when Neo-Cons, including Khalilzad, quit? Why would we want the first Muslim secretary of state to be a follower of that ludicrious philosophy? The Muslims have suffered enough.

    Reply

  8. Jim says:

    Steve,
    Have you forgotten that Khalilzad is one of the neocons that brought us to this debacle? There must be other Muslim intellects that would be better candidates for the position of Deputy Secretary of State.

    Reply

  9. Marcia says:

    TLittle must be a spokeman for Netanyahou touting an attack on Iran rather than a defender of the citizens of Connecticut.
    I don’t vote in Connecticut but if Liebermann ever runs for a federal office he will never get my vote.
    Steve
    With regard to Kalizad “He is reportedly on the verge of quitting”
    Aren’t they all? These suddenly virtuous stands come a bit late. Perhaps a way not to get wet while jumping ship?
    You say “we” should be firing Rumsfeld. Who do you include in that “we?” Did “we” hire him?
    These people do not share power or decision making but are masters of avoiding responsibility then getting medals and promotions.

    Reply

  10. Alex says:

    Not a great loss.
    Another apple from the Bush tree falls away.
    There’s nothing and no one connected with this administration that will escape being associated with the incompetence of this administration.
    And people will forget in 8-12 years and elect another Bush.
    Incompetent Americans.

    Reply

  11. tomz says:

    Anyone that would endorse a PNACr for anything has NOT been paying attention. Caution..reality disconnect…

    Reply

  12. bob h says:

    If we ever get the peace process going again, why not include a Muslim like Khalilzad as part of it?

    Reply

  13. TLittle says:

    Edmund Burke aptly said that, “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Joe Lieberman does not represent the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or any other political affiliation. He represents the citizens of the great state of Connecticut.
    Too often, our politics divide along party lines. Everyone can agree that the Iraq war has been grossly mismanaged. However, to leave now or anytime within the next year when that country is on the brink of civil war would do more harm than good.
    Lieberman sponsored the Iraq Resolution of 2002 and continued to support that resolution instead of faltering to outside pressure. “Stay the course” is not a winning strategy, but neither is abandonment. Many Democrats have come to make this the focus of the campaign. The fact is we are in Iraq and will continue to stay in Iraq. This election is a time to look toward the future, not dwell on the past.
    In terms of foreign policy, we face a growing threat in Iran that will likely require a tactical response from the administration. A nuclear Iran is looming and a determent to the world. The recent summer conflict between Israel and Hezbollah proved that Hezbollah armaments are more capable than the Lebanese government in attacking neighboring states. Iraq represents only one area of concern in the global war against terrorism.
    Liberty is a condition of autonomy that every one is capable of achieving through internal reflection; in short, Liberty is a universal principle that everyone can have. This is more than a war on terrorism; this is a war between two conflicting ideologies: liberty and theocracy.
    Lieberman has served this country with unwavering devotion. If he is only accountable to the Democratic Party and not the people of Connecticut, is it really democracy? When a political party takes on the role of the citizenry, what we have is nothing short of autocracy, one of the farthest deviations of American democracy. Lieberman may not represent the Democratic Party, but I am proud he represents the great state of Connecticut and God willing will continue to do so.

    Reply

  14. Ben Rosengart says:

    Santorum as Ambassador to Iraq. I love it.
    Too bad it’s not Lieberman losing *his* seat; he’d make an even more appropriate choice.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    A Muslim as Secretary of State would be some good PR for the US right now. Provided he doesn’t have any neo DNA.

    Reply

  16. km4 says:

    What does that tell you Steve Clemons ? Perhaps Khalilzad knows something that the Asses of Evil don’t and is getting out of town.

    Reply

  17. Nicholas weaver says:

    After all, Bush is so full of it that Spreading Santorum around Iraq would be an improvement over just about everything else he’s done…
    Also, its interesting to notice that Bectel has also turned tail and ran, AND announced it before the election rather than after. (Of course, as some bloggers remarked, this never got off the business section).

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *