The Road to Iran

You don't need tea leaves a crystal ball or any leaked White House memorandum to suspect that President Bush has his eye on military conflict with Iran. All you really need is a television, a dictionary and a memory (short and long term). The President's three step process would have been obvious except for the fact that we (America) have been a little distracted as of late with, the democratic victory in congress, Trans fat prohibition and that pesky little business in Iraq.

Human Resources Management

President Bush's began a "shake up" or reorganization of civilian and military leaders as earlier as last November. Donald Rumsfeld the highest ranking civilian leader to go was ousted shortly after the November Republican Congressional elections. Prior to the election, President Bush unequivocally told a group of reporters that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld would "remain with him until the end of his presidency..." he said of Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, "Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them." However, Rumsfeld's "light footprint" approach to Iraq, private criticisms of how well we were doing and a need for "a new way forward" shorted his welcome in the administration. Enter former CIA Director Robert Gates

Gates isn't a household name, or at least he wasn't at the time of his nomination. However, he was no stranger to congressional hearings. In early 1987, his role in the Iran-Contra affair came under scrutiny and Gates withdrew his nomination in the face of sure rejection. Fast-forward to 2006. The Senate gave Gates a free ride to the Defense Department top post with an "At least he isn't Rumsfeld Vote". The committee could have been forgiven for "moving on" from the 80's scandal, but might have been more inquisitive of Gate's willingness to play fast and loose with intelligence data.

During his 1991 nomination hearings to run the CIA, Carolyn McGiffert Ekedahl, a former agency analyst said that during the 1980s Gates had skewered intelligence to fit the convictions of senior Reagan administration officials that Soviet agents had concocted a plot to assassinate the pope and were arming and encouraging Marxist revolutionary groups to carry out terrorist attacks. Then head of CIA analysis, Gates, according Ekedahl, was dissatisfied with her draft she prepared about Soviet involvement in international terrorism, and helped rewrite it with an angle "to suggest greater Soviet support for terrorism." Gates may in fact not be Rumsfeld, but that doesn't mean he isn't the kind of "Yes" man and hawk the president's Iran aspirations may require.

Recently, retired Vice Admiral Mike McConnell was nominated to replace John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence. This is significant because McConnell directed the National Security Agency from 1992 to 1996 under President Bill Clinton. . Mr. McConnell has for the last ten years worked for Booz Allen Hamilton. He was promoted to Senior Vice President in 2005 and currently serves as a board member. These facts taken would make anyone apposed to possible military action against Iran hard pressed to refer to McCollen as "hawkish" or another Bush "Yes" man. Most Americans have never even heard of Booz Allen Hamilton. Reading their website would not give much alarm and might even inspire confidence with the President's choice of McConnell. The site reads:

Government Sector

We serve the public sector - government agencies, institutions, and infrastructure organizations worldwide - providing a broad range of management consulting, engineering, information technology, and systems development/integration services. Booz Allen's public sector work has significant impact - enhancing the national security, economic well-being, and health and safety of countries around the world.

However, it must be noted that among other services, Booz Allen Hamilton provides private intelligence to the defense department and McConnell while at the NSA had been a leading figure in outsourcing U.S. intelligence operations to private industry. This means as of late he has been a "Yes" man to US intelligence agencies. Moreover, his knowledge and entrenchment on both sides of the intelligence world (public and private) would make manipulation of National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) reports on Iran too inviting.

The ax has fallen on key military leaders as well. Remember the "generals on the ground"? Bush repeatedly stated they would determine military strategy. Apparently, the President meant only as long as those generals agreed with him. Whatever new direction the president unveils for the region in general and Iraq in particular, it will be carried out by new commanders.

Mr. Bush nominated Navy Adm. William Fallon to replace Gen. John Abizaid as the head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees U.S. military operations across the Middle East. Fallon his recent combat experience: A trained fighter pilot, he served in Vietnam and in the 1990 Gulf War.

The president's choice for the top ground commander in Iraq: Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus. Petraeus commanded the 101st Airborne Division during the invasion of Iraq, and later led efforts to train Iraqi security forces. Petraeus would replace Gen. George Casey, who would become Army Chief of Staff. In 2003 and early 2004, Petraeus was fairly successful in tamping down violence in Mosul using unconventional methods. Petraeus' achievements often proved difficult to replicate elsewhere in Iraq. Still he is an able commander, but so was General Casey.

The common denominator of Gates, McConnell, Fallon and Petraeus (their individual stellar records not withstanding); is none are likely to oppose the President's escalating troop levels in Iraq nor what seems to be an inevitable expanse into Iran. The first rule of putting together a team is making sure each of the major players buys into the plan or at least doesn't oppose it. The president, as human resource manager, has done just that.