A year and a half ago, Daniel Davies asked the question:
D-squared Digest -- A fat young man without a good word for anyone: can anyone, particularly the rather more Bush-friendly... give me one single example of something with the following three characteristics: (i) It is a policy initiative of the current Bush administration. (ii) It was significant enough in scale that I'd have heard of it (at a pinch, that I should have heard of it). (iii) It wasn't in some important way completely f***** up during the execution. It's just that I literally can't think what possible evidence [Tom] Friedman might be going on in his tacit assumption that the introduction of democracy to Iraq (if it is attempted at all) will be executed well rather than badly....
One contributing factor was the staffing of the CPA by right-wing ideologues without much experience and without many smarts but a lot of belief.
From TBogg, serving as wingman for Paul Krugman:
Posted by DeLong at July 1, 2004 07:53 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post»«TBogg»«: Let's see what Krugman wrote:
If the occupiers often seemed oblivious to reality, one reason was that many jobs at the C.P.A. went to people whose qualifications seemed to lie mainly in their personal and political connections — people like Simone Ledeen, whose father, Michael Ledeen, a prominent neoconservative, told a forum that "the level of casualties is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."
Still, given Mr. Bremer's economic focus, you might at least have expected his top aide for private-sector development to be an expert on privatization and liberalization in such countries as Russia or Argentina. But the job initially went to Thomas Foley, a Connecticut businessman and Republican fund-raiser with no obviously relevant expertise. In March, Michael Fleischer, a New Jersey businessman, took over. Yes, he's Ari Fleischer's brother. Mr. Fleischer told The Chicago Tribune that part of his job was educating Iraqi businessmen: "The only paradigm they know is cronyism. We are teaching them that there is an alternative system with built-in checks and built-in review." (my emphasis)
First... the Ledeen quotes come from the father and not the daughter so it would be stretching the point to say that Krugman called Simone a "warmonger".<
Secondly, one would have to be incredibly obtuse not to believe that her name didn't have something to do with her gaining a job with the CPA. Her politics certainly did:
Ledeen's journey to Baghdad began two weeks earlier when she received an e-mail out of the blue from the Pentagon's White House liaison office. The Sept. 16 message informed her that the occupation government in Iraq needed employees to prepare for an international conference. "This is an amazing opportunity to move forward on the global war on terror," the e-mail read.
For Ledeen, the offer seemed like fate. One of her family friends had been killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and it had affected her family deeply. Without hesitation, she responded "Sure" to the e-mail and waited -- for an interview, a background check or some other follow-up. Apparently none was necessary. A week later, she got a second e-mail telling her to look for a packet in the mail regarding her move to Baghdad.
[...]
For months they wondered what they had in common, how their names had come to the attention of the Pentagon, until one day they figured it out: They had all posted their resumes at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank.
[...]
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joseph Yoswa said the CPA was satisfied with the quality of applicants. Some staffers may have been young and inexperienced, he said, but "we have people right out of college leading troops on the ground."
Yoswa said the recruiting office had to hire quickly for the Madrid donors conference that fall and "turned to the Heritage Foundation, an educational facility, albeit a conservative one, but primarily a place where you can get good, solid people." He said this was a one-time event and that there was no organized effort to hire Republicans.
In late October, he said, the Pentagon set up a job site on the Web. Eleven thousand people filled out an application and several hundred of them were hired. "Nowhere did we ask party affiliation," he said.
'The Brat Pack'
When Ledeen's group showed up at the palace -- with their North Face camping gear, Abercrombie & Fitch camouflage and digital cameras -- they were quite the spectacle. For some, they represented everything that was right with the CPA: They were young, energetic and idealistic. For others, they represented everything that was wrong with the CPA: They were young, inexperienced, and regarded as ideologues.
Several had impressive paper credentials, but in the wrong fields. Greco was fluent in English, Italian and Spanish; Burns had been a policy analyst focused on family and health care; and Ledeen had co-founded a cooking school. But none had ever worked in the Middle East, none spoke Arabic, and few could tell a balance sheet from an accounts receivable statement.
Other staffers quickly nicknamed the newcomers "The Brat Pack."
"They had come over because of one reason or another, and they were put in positions of authority that they had no clue about," remembered Army Reserve Sgt. Thomas D. Wirges, 38, who had been working on rehabilitating the Baghdad Stock Exchange.
Some also grumbled about the new staffers' political ties. Retired U.S. Army Col. Charles Krohn said many in the CPA regard the occupation "as a political event," always looking for a way to make the president look good.
[...]
The pay turned out to be good. Ledeen and her co-workers had agreed to come to Iraq without knowing their salaries. They ended up with standard government base salaries in the range of $30,000 to $75,000 a year, plus a 25 percent foreign differential, another 25 percent for a workplace "in imminent danger," and overtime pay. In the end, almost everyone was making the equivalent of six-figure salaries.As Joe Conason noted:
According to a remarkable article in the Washington Post, the CPA selected a number of utterly inexperienced young conservatives to oversee critical aspects of Iraq's reconstruction. Apparently these youthful idealists were chosen solely because their résumés had been posted on the Web site of the right-wing Heritage Foundation. (Such clumsy political vetting is ironically reminiscent of the ultra-left origins of the neoconservative movement.)
The results of their excellent adventure were predictably poor, as important aspects of the struggling nation's finances were turned over to the likes of Todd Baldwin, a former legislative aide to Sen. Rick Santorum; John Hanley, an editor of the Heritage Foundation Web site; and Simone Ledeen, the daughter of Iran-Contra figure Michael Ledeen, whose résumé featured her role in founding a cooking school. Despite their obvious lack of qualifications, all were hired without so much as an interview or a background check. (The level of Ledeen's political maturity is amusingly displayed on a Christian-right Web site, which posted her gushing account of the president's Thanksgiving visit to the troops in Baghdad. Coming down from the euphoria of meeting Bush, Ledeen wrote, "Hillary Clinton is coming here tomorrow. For her sake I hope I don't see her. I might do something crazy like spit in her direction.")
Much like their more senior sponsors, the young conservatives sent to staff the CPA possessed more enthusiasm than wisdom, and more self-confidence than self-knowledge. And young and old, no matter how bad things look -- they will all tell anybody who listens that they are doing a great job.
Well, I'm sure the membership of MoveOn.org would have been able to produce a higher quality list of applicants. However, this is somewhat ironic in light of recent posts here decrying "lying":
"Simone Ledeen, the daughter of Iran-Contra figure Michael Ledeen, whose résumé featured her role in founding a cooking school. Despite their obvious lack of qualifications..."
I'll bet her resume also includes her MBA, which would seem to qualify her to read financials. Here's someone who actually knows her (Mona Charen):
"I happen to know Simone Ledeen. She is an MBA who speaks three languages. Iraq was not her first idealistic mission. She had earlier lived and worked in Poland following the liberation from communism. She helped to transform what had been an underground Solidarity book publishing enterprise into a thriving, free market enterprise."
If I'm evaluating Ms Ledeen, I see someone with an education and entrepreneurial experience that would be useful in a chaotic, unpredictable environment.
The Post article implies that Ledeen was doing more than "reading financials:"
"...[Six] of the new young hires found themselves managing the country's $13 billion budget, making decisions affecting millions of Iraqis."
Does a newly-minted MBA and "entrepreneurial experience" qualify one for that?
If a Democrat with her credentials had been given that job, Patrick would be screaming.
He's devoid of integrity.
Posted by: Chuck Nolan on July 1, 2004 09:08 AMLet the word go forth from this day! Cheney = f****
Posted by: dilbert dogbert on July 1, 2004 09:22 AMOne of the things which steamed me was this:
" Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Joseph Yoswa said the CPA was satisfied with the quality of applicants. Some staffers may have been young and inexperienced, he said, but "we have people right out of college leading troops on the ground.""
I checked, to see how long it would take for somebody right out of college, with no military training, to become a 2LT. As far as I could figure out from the Army's website, it'd be over 300 days of training (basic => OCS => Infantry Officer's Basic). Hardly 'right out of college'.
"Yoswa said the recruiting office had to hire quickly for the Madrid donors conference that fall and "turned to the Heritage Foundation, an educational facility, ..."
This makes the Heritage Foundation sound like a school, not a propaganda mill/place for out-of-office political types to hang out at.
"...albeit a conservative one, but primarily a place where you can get good, solid people." He said this was a one-time event and that there was no organized effort to hire Republicans. "
I'd call getting one's resume pool from the Heritage Foundation exactly an organized effort to hire Republicans. Unless LTC Yoswa is admitting that the effort was not organized, which would be typical of this administration.
Posted by: Barry on July 1, 2004 09:47 AMPatrick says "Iraq was not her first idealistic mission. She had earlier lived and worked in Poland following the liberation from communism. She helped to transform what had been an underground Solidarity book publishing enterprise into a thriving, free market enterprise."
Uh, Patrick, your quoted source just might be full of it. Ms Ledeen is 28 years old so was born in 75/76. The Communist government fell in 89 so Ms Ledeen would have been in Junior High.
Then again, maybe she's just precocious and did this for her 7th grade honors Eco project. Or, maybe, she interned at some point and her source is engaging in a little resume inflation.
Posted by: Charles M on July 1, 2004 10:09 AMWell, if the results are what count, those who hired the CPA staffers should be more ashamed if they claim they used standard, realistic qualifications and a standard, realistic process. If they applied those things, what is there excuse for the mess? Notably the slowness of the reconstruction effort? Do they want to shift the blame to some other branch of government?
Posted by: sm on July 1, 2004 10:12 AMmore importantly is HOW MANY WILL KEEP JOBS FOLLOWING DEPARTURE, NO FLIGHT OF BREMER? The CPA administration will become the US Embassy in Iraq in more than just name. How many of these crusaders will burrow into the Embassy staff? How many will find ways into State Dept? How many will get to go to the head of the line and begin the infiltration by Sons and Daughters and Cousins and Pool and Country Club Firends of Neocons of our diplomatic corps?
Posted by: SkipWalkDC on July 1, 2004 11:05 AMActually how many are going back into the DC infrastructure should be the pertinent question- nice to live in the green zone for a six fugure income. I note the GI's who do the dying get paid *significantly* less for their front line interactions in Iraq. Opportunistic suckers- of course if Iraq does go seriously bad all of that Northface gear will impede their pellmell Bremer flight!
Posted by: AllenM on July 1, 2004 12:25 PMSo the CPA brats are presumably on their way back home, and will be in the U.S. in time for the convention in NYC and the fall campaign, after a no doubt much deserved vacation.
If the Bush campaign was as smart as its supposed to be, we would be hearing no more of them until after November, when they presumably would be up for plum book jobs if he is reelected. My guess, based on the inability of gwb.com to deviate in any way from its Plan, is that they will reappear in NYC and we will hear a lot about their "courage" at political events throughout the Fall. I forecast stories of Green Zone romances, with engagements and wedding announcemenst. And interviews with the various infotainment outlets. Another example of Rove's possible (lack of) genius.
Posted by: George on July 1, 2004 12:28 PMExcellent work, CharlesM, but then again, with Mona Charren as a source, it stood to reason that there was more than met the eye....
Posted by: howard on July 1, 2004 12:33 PMBarry-
I would say that Lt. Col. Yoswa was refering to college students who had undergone an ROTC program or college students from one of the three academies. If my understanding is correct this students are commisioned as officers in which case they would possibly be commanding troops right out of college.
yes, Charles what a snoop!
George, that "fall campaign", laced with so much enthusiasm, as opposed to say "autumn"? ( your understudy needs to know... a troubling 2nd occurrence, capitalized, further down...)
Calmo calls me a snoop.
With all the context text provides (essentially none), I'm not sure how to take it. So, given the connotations of snoop, I'll take it negatively.
So, Calmo, should we accept Patrick's blather as gospel? Or should he have done as I did, find out Ledeen's age and decide the story was bogus.
Posted by: Charles M on July 1, 2004 04:41 PMI feel a bit sheepish in saying this but of all the disasters in the occupation phase, this cronyism/nepotism stuff has bothered me the most. i mean, if your going to go thru all of the bother of having a pre-emption policy, meaning the neocons took alot of (well-deserved) crap for this, you would think that you would follow thru in a competent manner. Not only is the US stuck with this reputation for being bloodthirsty, we are also now stuck with the reputation of being totally inept. This whole re-invention of the wheel business when we have so much expertise from Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, the emerging markets in the former Soviet bloc. Christ, instead of using the Poles to guard some dusty towns in the south, we should have brought them to Baghdad to give some insight on how what to avoid when transforming an economy.
Posted by: Carol on July 1, 2004 06:37 PMOne of the more noticeable features of the Bush Administration is its proclivity for hiring or appointing only those people with the "right" background/ideology and connections. The Bushies seem to have a relatively small circle of cronies--so quite a few former Iran-contra convicts (in that they were convicted) made it into the Bush Administration, etc. When Perle got forced off that Defense Advisory Board (I am not sure that was the title of that entity), some of the articles written about him at the time drew a picture of a very tightly knit group--so many people in the Bush Administration invested in some investment vehicle of Perle's, which in turn was connected to the defense industry (which is what fund/vehicle invested in . . . these guys don't know or don't care about conflicts of interest--the "revolving door" between gov't and industry has whirled at high speed since the Bushies moved into the WH. And of course, all us non-connected/non-wealthy peons should just "trust" them. The cronyism was there from day one and seems to have just gotten stronger (if only because those not included left). It is appalling. People thought Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall was bad-the Bushies have them beat. Those who don't fit in are sidelined or driven out. Notice how many people have left this administration and how many former gov't types (former/ret. intelligence, former/ret. military, academics/lawyers--some of whom probably worked for the feds at some point, former diplomats/foreign service) have come out publicly against the policies and actions of the Bushies. Placing loyalty and a specific ideological orientation over expertise and skill isn't limited to Iraq--note how Bush/GOP dominated Congress has packed the FDA, EPA and Bush's policy on stem cell research. It is very embarassing, it represents a horrible waste of expertise, and has had close to catastrophic results. It's no wonder US prestige has dropped precipitously.
Posted by: azurite on July 1, 2004 09:40 PMIronically, most of these young conservatives will go on to long and distinguished careers in the government-bashing industry, and will forever ornament their arguments with examples drawn from their formative year in Baghdad.
Posted by: RonK, Seattle on July 1, 2004 10:38 PMIronically, most of these young conservatives will go on to long and distinguished careers in the government-bashing industry, and will forever ornament their arguments with examples drawn from their formative year in Baghdad.
Posted by: RonK, Seattle on July 1, 2004 10:39 PMRonK, your comment reminds me of a quote from (of all people) PJ O'Rourke:
"Republicans are a party that argues that government doesn't work, and then gets elected and proves it!"
I might have the exact wording wrong but you get the idea.
Posted by: Sir Humphrey on July 1, 2004 11:28 PMCharles re snoop: a compliment or a criticism?
context: poster drew snuck between poster howard and my post ('yes' is my response to howard's support for you).
But you may have considered the latter part of my post, knee deep about scarcasm, to be knee deep IN scarcasm.
And you could be right. I have been reinstructed/redirected before. And survived.
There is the view ( perpetrated by not only me) that Patrick is not a genuine poster like the rest of us. Nope.
There is the view that he is a device used by BDL to garnish the issues of the day for those of us who really need to ply the mustard to an otherwise unpalatable dish. This view is backed up by the astute observation of one maccasio ( only close) who noted that the tag 'Patrick R. Sullivan' never visits threads like the Quiche thread. (or the dessert menu in general)
Telling, no?
Thanks for giving me the chance to mull over 'snoop'.
And thanks for the redirection. Again.
Bookmark this one, kids, as a reference for future Paddywhackery. Because you won't get a 'mea culpa' from Sullivan here.
Posted by: ahem on July 3, 2004 05:45 PM