Politics Trumped Competence When Selecting Staff to Rebuild Iraq

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ouch, add another thing (a very big thing, it would seem) to the list of things screwed up in the rebuilding of Iraq.

Crazed Rabbit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Unfortunately, it is VERY difficult to cull this dynamic out of any hiring process that features political appointments or apointees at some level.

Political patronage takes many forms and seems to influence -- sometimes dominate -- virtually all political systems. This appears to be yet another sad example in a historically long list.

[Kralizec]

Political patronage, in the sense of secretly favouring protoges or fellow members of your party is perhaps an inevitable phenomenon, true.
Openly asking applicants for essentially non-political jobs wether they voted for Bush or what their stance on abortion is goes a bit further then just political patronage. This is a rather outstanding case rather then just another addition to a list of rather minor corruption.

If one imagines what damage this could (and maybe has) caused to rebuilding Iraq, one could almost label this as criminal negligence

[Geoffrey S]

Considering the presumably large amounts of people refused after failing to answer such questions in a satisfactory manner I'm surprised it's taken this long for the story to come out. These things always turn up near elections, don't they?

[Xiahou]

Political patronage, in the sense of secretly favouring protoges or fellow members of your party is perhaps an inevitable phenomenon, true.
Openly asking applicants for essentially non-political jobs wether they voted for Bush or what their stance on abortion is goes a bit further then just political patronage. This is a rather outstanding case rather then just another addition to a list of rather minor corruption.

If one imagines what damage this could (and maybe has) caused to rebuilding Iraq, one could almost label this as criminal negligence

I wouldnt be suprised if some of it was a clumsy effort to vet out any future Joe Wilson types- those who would take a position just so they can come back and say in the Press "I was the director of xyz in Iraq- and let me tell you, Bush has lied to us, we have no business there"... yada yada.

[Lemur]

If it was such an effort, it was ham-handed, and dangerous to boot. If securing Iraq is key to our national security, then stuffing the C.P.A. with cronies and inexperienced kids is in direct contravention of our nation's interests.

[edit]

Or, to quote a blogger who put it much better than the lemur:

The only thing that matters in this White House is politics. The substance of policy is secondary. If Bush ran a war with the dedication, ruthlessness and attention to detail that he brings to bear on a political campaign, then he might actually have a strategy for winning one. And, as Jon Chait points out, the more we find out about the spectacular recklessness of this administration's conduct of the war the less persusasive it is that this operation was always doomed to failure. In my view, although the war was always going to be extremely difficult, it wasn't necessarily doomed from the start. It was the administration's relentless, politicized incompetence that doomed it.

[Papewaio]

You could at the minimum have yes men with experience. You can also have people who are on the other side of the political spectrum who have basic interview skills which would allow them to get past that round with ease.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Political patronage, in the sense of secretly favouring protoges or fellow members of your party is perhaps an inevitable phenomenon, true.
Openly asking applicants for essentially non-political jobs wether they voted for Bush or what their stance on abortion is goes a bit further then just political patronage. This is a rather outstanding case rather then just another addition to a list of rather minor corruption.

If one imagines what damage this could (and maybe has) caused to rebuilding Iraq, one could almost label this as criminal negligence

I don't know if I'd label it criminal, but ignoring qualifications in favor of "politicaly reliability" is probably a form of negligence. I'm certain that some measure of the foul ups in Iraq stems from this kind of thing.

I disagree as to this case being "oustanding" in historical terms. I was neither acting as an apologist for the Bush administration on this nor attempting to dismiss it as insignificant. As a scholar of organizations, I was merely noting that this was a continuous theme.

By-the-by, most historical patronage in the USA has been pretty overt. The hiring system for REGULAR federal employees is supposed to screen all of that out. The stuff that gets pulled with contractors can make your head spin.

[yesdachi]

“It is not what you know but who you know.” Is the mantra of uneducated and under qualified fools who “know someone” across the world.

[Lemur]

If you're at all interested in how the early formation of the C.P.A. worked, I strongly recommend the book I'm reading right now, The Assassin's Gate. It's a well-sourced and deeply depressing read.

Christopher Hitchens (one of the pillars of modern conservatism) wrote of the book: "The Iraq debate has long needed someone who is both tough-minded enough, and sufficiently sensitive, to register all its complexities. In George Packer's work, this need is answered."

So let's not get the usual "oh that's just liberal propaganda," as we seem to hear anytime someone tries to do an in-depth look at our policies that doesn't begin and end as a total endorsement of the President.

[macsen rufus]

"I'm not here for the Iraqis," one staffer noted to a reporter over lunch. "I'm here for George Bush."

Well, is it any wonder Iraq is so f****d now???

[Xiahou]

If you're at all interested in how the early formation of the C.P.A. worked, I strongly recommend the book I'm reading right now, The Assassin's Gate. It's a well-sourced and deeply depressing read.

I do recall the first CPA head (a retired general who's name escapes me) being hurriedly replaced fairly early on.

So let's not get the usual "oh that's just liberal propaganda," as we seem to hear anytime someone tries to do an in-depth look at our policies that doesn't begin and end as a total endorsement of the President.

*sigh*