The Steward Of Pottery Barn

BAG NEWS NOTES

Is U.S. Iraqi Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad really Paul Bremer in disguise?

Nov 27, 2005

A theme The BAG has been pursuing lately is the MSM's reluctance to acknowledge how much the U.S. continues to exert political control over Iraq. At the same time, the reality of the fact keeps surfacing between the lines. Consider the story last week in the NYT by John Burns regarding the return of Tikrit's massive palace complex to the Iraqi's (Return of Former Palace to Sovereignty of Iraqis Offers Glimmer of Hope - link).

First of all, the fact this high profile event was so vulnerable as to be temporarily disrupted by a mortar attack doesn't exactly bode well for the our stabilization efforts. (The second shot shows the smiling U.S. ambassador "escorted" out of the ceremony by two men identified as "armed guards.")

However, my main point has to do the exercise of U.S. authority behind the scenes (or actually, in plain sight, but absent the attention of the press). Here's an example of how contradictory and telling details manage to show themselves. The seventh paragraph of The Times story reads as follows:

Mr. Khalilzad, a 54-year-old former scholar who came to Baghdad last summer after two years as ambassador to Afghanistan, where he was born, made light of the affair [the mortar attack] and used it to underscore the close relationship that he and the general say is central to calibrating America's policies here. "I ended up with General Casey on top of me," he said, laughing, "so I guess that's a pretty good sign for civil-military relations." He stuck to his schedule after the ceremony, meeting with local leaders in the palace to accept petitions on everything from property disputes to a reopening of the Tikrit airport.

What it curious -- both in tone and content -- is this last sentence. Can you interpret Khalilzad's role as anything but a viceroy if he serves as the ultimate authority among local leaders (especially in the palace he supposedly just returned!). And what can we make of the mandate "the local authorities" do possess considering they don't even sit in disposition of property disputes?

Link Here