WASHINGTON —
Frustrated by theslow pace of reconstruction in Iraq, an
increasingly vocal group of Republicans on Capitol Hill is urging the White
House to shift control of the effort from the Pentagon to the State
Department.
The State Department, with its ability to muster civilian
technocrats, is better equipped than the Pentagon to undertake the massive task
of rebuilding Iraq, some argue. Others suggest that putting more of a civilian
face on the U.S. presence in Iraq would defuse anti-American
sentiment.
"You are more likely to get things accomplished without
appearing to be occupiers," said one GOP senator, who asked not to be named.
"Any opportunity you have to minimize the military look is probably a good
thing."
A senior House Republican aide said that as problems in Iraq
mount, so does debate on Capitol Hill about who should run Iraq. And as the
political stakes rise, congressional Republicans are increasingly prepared to
press the president.
"There isn't a consensus, but there is discontent
with the Pentagon," the aide said. "These people do not do well on humanitarian
reconstruction work. They never have."
Others said that although many
GOP lawmakers were frustrated with postwar developments, it would be premature
and unwise to change course now.
"The practicality and the experience of
our military leadership in Iraq is of great value," Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El
Cajon), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said Friday. "We should
leverage that talent at this point instead of trying to displace it with a State
Department apparatus."
Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) has publicly raised
questions before about the Pentagon's role in reconstruction. And in an
interview Thursday, Lugar said he argued in a one-on-one meeting with President
Bush last week that the Pentagon is ill-suited to nation-building.
The
senator declined to characterize the president's response, saying only that the
administration seemed open to creative ideas.
Lugar, chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also said he planned to hold hearings soon
to "think through what is the most appropriate branch of government" to handle
different functions in Iraq.
Fighting the war, rebuilding infrastructure
and political development require "separate sets of skills or strengths," he
said. The State Department, he said, was probably better equipped than the
Pentagon to rebuild Iraq. But Lugar said he would wait for the outcome of the
hearings and listen to all points of view before offering a formal
proposal.
Sen. Charles Hagel (R-Neb.), a Foreign
Relations Committee member, said he agreed with Lugar.
"Our troops have
performed better than anyone could have ever thought, but the sophistication of
this phase [of reconstruction] is going to require a different set of skills and
infrastructure and leadership," he said in an interview Friday.
With
armed resistance to the U.S. presence in Iraq continuing, the Republican critics
are not suggesting that the military's role providing security in Iraq is over.
Rather, they want to see the reconstruction of infrastructure and political life
directed by the State Department.
The U.S. military reservists who are
handling much of the civil reconstruction have done a fine job, but "they are
not a cadre of people we can count on for nation-building over months and
years," Lugar said, adding: "This is not a criticism of the Pentagon."
L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. civilian administrator of Iraq, is a former
State Department official who reports directly to Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld.
A Pentagon spokesman said Friday that his agency had not seen a
proposal to change that line of command and could not comment on reports that
Lugar and others were considering options. There was no immediate comment from
the White House.
"We are prepared to do on behalf of the United States
whatever the president asks us to do," a senior State Department official said.
"The issue is not who gets control over Iraq, but how we can help the Iraqis
take back their sovereignty, and that applies to the U.S. government
too."
Even if Bush were inclined to take control of the Iraqi
reconstruction effort away from Rumsfeld, some observers questioned whether
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell would be eager to take over an effort that
has been thwarted by terrorist bombings, assassinations and
sabotage.
Much of Congress' ire has been directed at Deputy Defense
Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, one of the key intellectual architects of the Iraq
war.
"Somebody's got to be held responsible for this," said Rep. John P.
Murtha (D-Pa.), a hawkish Democrat who is usually supportive of the Pentagon but
now faults Wolfowitz.
Another Democrat, Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin,
has called for Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to resign because of their responsibility
for what he called a "disaster" in planning for the postwar
occupation.
But Thomas Mann, a congressional specialist at the Brookings
Institution, a Washington think tank, said members of Congress had begun to view
the Iraq occupation as a potential liability in their own upcoming election
battles.
"The Hill has been shaken to its roots in the last couple of
weeks," Mann said. With a few exceptions, "this has been the most quiescent,
unquestioning Congress when it comes to oversight" of the occupation, he
said.
"Republicans have been good soldiers, loyalists, and Democrats have
been fearful of getting burned politically — but that has changed with the bad
news," Mann said.
Bush puts a premium on resolve and is typically loath
to change strategy, and to remove the Iraq portfolio from Rumsfeld now would
seem to acknowledge shortcomings, Mann said. On the other hand, the president
"has strong political survival instincts" and is aware that polls show his
popularity declining. A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll released Friday — after Bush's
Sunday speech asking for $87 billion more to cover reconstruction and occupation
costs in Iraq and Afghanistan — found his approval rating has dropped to 52%,
nearly back to the 51% rating he had before the Sept. 11
attacks.
Congress first went on record in April as wanting Powell, not
Rumsfeld, to oversee reconstruction. Bluntly worded war-spending bills approved
by both chambers that month gave control of $2.5 billion in postwar
reconstruction spending to the State Department, even though Bush had
established the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in the
Pentagon. After lobbying by Vice President Dick Cheney, Congress agreed to let
the White House decide how the money should be spent.
Most lawmakers
don't care who runs Iraq as long as the job gets done, several Republicans
said.
"Some believe there is an institutional problem, but most just want
it to be taken care of," the Senate GOP source said."They
could bring in the Labor Department for all they care."
Times staff writers Greg Miller, John Hendren and Nick Anderson contributed
to this report.
