Out with the old, in with the new

Thursday's Wall Street Journal (subs. req'd, but alternative free link) editorialises about Iraq. Of Irish interest:

The U.S., Britain, the Arab League and other outside powers will also have to tread carefully lest they encourage Iraq's Sunni parties to become thinly veiled front groups for terror -- like Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland or the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Of course, given recent events in Ireland, it could be that having front groups for terror, albeit ones stacked with intelligence agents, is part of the plan.

The editorial also assigns lots of blame for what's gone wrong in Iraq, although one person escapes blame. But not interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi:

On the lessons-learned side, the election was final and definitive evidence of what a mistake it was for U.S. and British intelligence to bet all their chips on Mr. Allawi as the standard bearer for secularism in Iraq. We warned for a long time that the ex-Baathist would probably have a hard time winning the trust of many Iraqis traumatized by Saddam Hussein. The CIA's role here -- and in simultaneously undermining Mr. Chalabi -- is yet another of its Iraq intelligence failures.

Note the inversion: the dude who supplied the bogus WMD intelligence is a victim of the CIA. And their stand-offish attitude to Allawi was not in evidence when he made his Bush-Cheney '04 campaign appearance (remember, the speech written by Dan Senor):

WSJ editorial, September 24, 2004 ... it's been more than a little refreshing to hear the message of hope, resolve and gratitude delivered by Ayad Allawi during his U.S. visit this week ... He noted the recent success of Iraqi forces in re-establishing control of the troublesome Sunni town of Samarra, as well as the Shiite holy city of Najaf. He added a well-deserved jab at our friends in the media, who reported the fighting there but have since "lost interest and left." ... At an editorial board meeting with us on Wednesday, Mr. Allawi politely suggested that the Secretary General "probably is misinformed" about the real situation on the ground ...

Mr. Kerry, for one, must not have been listening too carefully to those remarks, given his ungracious reaction to Mr. Allawi's speech. The Senator accused the Prime Minister of "contradicting his own statement[s]" and of putting the "best face" on the situation ... Mr. Kerry now insults the Iraqis he'd be working with if he becomes President ...

But overall the Prime Minister had the right message ... We'd add from firsthand experience that Mr. Allawi's positive attitude is shared by the vast majority of Iraqis themselves

Back then, it was John Kerry who had doubts about Allawi, not the WSJ. Now, the doubts are displayed in an op-ed piece on their pages a few weeks ago:

On June 28, 2004, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator L. Paul Bremer appointed Iyad Allawi as interim prime minister. Mr. Allawi, a former Baathist, was a favorite of the U.S., British and Jordanian intelligence services. He projected an image of strong leadership to an Iraqi audience craving security. He promised to jumpstart reconstruction. But he failed. Corruption exploded. Iraqis blamed his empowerment of senior Baathists for the spread of insurgency and decline in security. Furthermore, he treated U.S. diplomats, not Iraqis, as his most important constituency

Note first that this indictment covers the period when Allawi was criticised by John Kerry -- to the then consternation of the Wall Street Journal. But it's also interesting that the new line on Allawi was written by Michael Rubin, whose name came up in another context recently:

[New York Times] Lincoln [PR firm] has also turned to American scholars and political consultants for advice on the content of the propaganda campaign in Iraq, records indicate. Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington research organization, said he had reviewed materials produced by the company during two trips to Iraq within the past two years.

"I visited Camp Victory and looked over some of their proposals or products and commented on their ideas," Mr. Rubin said in an e-mailed response to questions about his links to Lincoln. "I am not nor have I been an employee of the Lincoln Group. I do not receive a salary from them."

He added: "Normally, when I travel, I receive reimbursement of expenses including a per diem and/or honorarium." But Mr. Rubin would not comment further on how much in such payments he may have received from Lincoln.

So the WSJ editorial line on Iraq exactly mimics that of a guy who is indirectly getting Pentagon cash via their PR contract with Lincoln. The WSJ should at least be upfront about whether they're a part of score-settling between the Pentagon and the CIA.

UPDATE 5 JAN: According the reliable news section of the WSJ, Chalabi is indeed back in the White House good books:

ADMINISTRATION WANTS Chalabi in new Iraqi government.

The former exile leader, a Cheney favorite before falling from grace, was recently named acting oil minister with Washington's blessing; though his party won no seats in elections, Bush aides hope he'll get the post permanently.