  A second Presidential term provides an opportunity to shuffle the deck. While I hope American voters don't give George W. Bush that chance... if he does get it, he ought to say goodbye to National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice. urlLink The New Republic Online has a urlLink good piece that lays a sizeable chunk of the blame for post-war Iraq at Rice's feet. When it comes to postwar Iraq, there is enough blame, as Robert Kennedy used to say about Vietnam, to go around. Much of that blame rightly accrues to the Defense Department, which at times seems to approach the postwar as a theological exercise--over-investing in unreliable Iraqi proxies, committing insufficient numbers of U.S. troops, and, in a reprise of Saigon's five-o'clock follies, regularly assuring us that all has gone according to plan. It has not. But the fault hardly rests with the Pentagon alone. The White House--and, specifically, the NSC--bears ultimate responsibility for the conduct of the war in Iraq and its aftermath. It does so because it is the responsibility of the president and his national security adviser to have the final say on matters of foreign and defense policy and, as such, to mediate the frequent disputes between State and Defense. They have done neither. Rice is a good political scientist, but her success at NSA has been overrated and I think she's received the light end of the stick from media looking to find scapegoats for the general mess in Iraq.
The TNR story, and many other reports, have pointed out the near open ideological warfare between the State Department and the Pentagon. The National Security Advisor is supposed to be the referee between the two factions. Frankly, I think few would have the strength to keep Rumsfeld and Powell apart. The level of disagreement and the lack of cooperation between State and the Pentagon are as high as they've ever been.
But Condoleeza Rice doesn't seem to be holding her own in that battle. TNR reports she's been overpowered by it. The result is two policies on Iraq, North Korea, Iran, etc. Ultimately, the President bears responsibility, of course. And while many leaders encourage a certain level of internecine squabbling and competitiveness in the upper ranks, usually those leaders are strong enough to set the course once their captains have defined it for them. Bush doesn't seem to be capable of exerting enough force to keep the competing ideologies in line. 
