View previous stories
	Looking for leadership in America by Richard Rodriguez PBS Online News Hour USA   November 16 , 2005   In those days after Hurricane Katrina, many remembered Rudolph Giuliani. On Sep. 11, the clear blue sky had seemed to collapse, and the mayor of New York strode down the roiling street, barking orders, oblivious of his own safety. He embodied the resilience of his city and whatever measure one had previously taken of the man, that day it was clear. There was a leader.   After Katrina, television cameras searched and searched but never found their Giuliani. And so the argument in the aftermath of the storm was about the failure of leadership.   History does not always test the powerful. Potentially great leaders fade into obscurity because they do not preside over calamity. But pity the powerful who are tested by history - and fail.   All of us can name people who are powerful in America. But who can name leaders from among their ranks? Whether in Washington or at the state capitol, whether on Wall Street or in some church hierarchy, there is power, not leadership.   From Rome there is news that the Vatican intends to purge homosexuals from the ranks of clergy in order to avoid future pedophilia scandals, but the greatest scandal within the Church has been the failure of bishops as moral leaders.   In corporate America, the CEO sells his stock before the plunge or rewards himself even as his company fails. We have grown so used to seeing corporate America in handcuffs we are becoming a soft and cynical people. We are entertained by the vulgarity of Donald Trump and his humiliation of the underling.   The relationship of the powerful to the crowd is stuff of high drama. It was Shakespeare"s concern: the lives of kings and princes. We groundlings in the pit are not Prince Hal, but in becoming king, Hal learns to embody the character of his people.   In a democracy, we do not elect leaders exactly. We elect representatives to work the will of the people. But we like to think that we appraise the character of those we elect. A leader emerges often in times of duress by finding the true meaning of his position and task: As president, as governor, as mayor. There is often a risk in leadership. The leader assumes the danger the crowd faces and more. The general leads his men into battle; the captain is the last to abandon the ship.   In today"s America, men and women of the working class are paid to fight wars the powerful never risk.   Princess Diana, dysfunctional, perhaps slightly mad, seemed to me a true leader, instinctive in ways that appropriate Queen Elizabeth will never be. Princess Diana could touch people - literally touch the wounded. And a nation recognized their suffering in her suffering.   The ritual of hands touching hands is a staple of modern politics. It derives from an ancient belief that the anointed hand of the royal had healing power. But what happens when this ceremony is only theatrical and the powerful inhabit a world unconnected in a common fate?   The failed Boston cardinal is awarded a palace in Rome; the ex-con has her TV show again. The floodwaters recede to reveal a network of contracts and cronies.   My concern here is not with the falling popularity of Republicans or with the failure of Democrats to say what they stand for beyond an envy of power. My concern here is with the disconnection between power and leadership in America. In this time of the absence of leaders we groundlings in the pit might ask how we have come to have such kings and princes as these.
	Iraqi Leaders call for foreign forces to set a timetable for withdrawal by Daily Star, AAP, Reuters, UN News Egypt / Iraq   Dec 2005   The U.S. should set a withdrawal deadline, by Rami G. Khouri . (The Daily Star)   The center of gravity of discussion on Iraq has shifted dramatically in the past two months, from the mess the Americans created to the mess the Iraqis must deal with. Change and transition are in the air in the United States and Iraq, as the Bush administration grasps that most Iraqis and Arabs, and now most Americans, want a clear plan for the U.S. to withdraw its troops.   The two most visible changes within the U.S. that a visitor sees are the altered nature of President George W. Bush"s rhetoric, and the prevalent expectation that the U.S. will start withdrawing some of its troops in the coming months. Behind the dizzying political rhetoric lies the one dynamic that overrides all others: will this week"s election in Iraq usher in a legitimate Iraqi government and Parliament, replacing what is seen as an illegitimate American military occupation and political administration?   In four speeches he gave in recent weeks, Bush has adopted a slightly more humble and realistic tone, while insisting that American troops will remain until the day of an imprecisely defined "victory." He has seemed unconvincing, repeating old arguments that most Americans no longer find credible, according to opinion polls.   But this rhetorical onslaught is less important than developments on the ground in Iraq, where the parliamentary elections may lead to an important transitional phase in which we might finally witness the transfer of genuine power from American troops to Iraqi politicians. Much debate will continue about whether the elections on Thursday were legitimate or not, and whether the new Iraqi Parliament and government, with the growing national army and police system, will be able to restore stability and security throughout the country. In the coming months, Iraqis themselves will answer these questions, but they can only do so if they are free of American political and ideological tutelage.   The most important and urgent task at hand now is to speed up the creation of a stable national government and governance system that Iraqis themselves judge to be legitimate and representative. Elections can be a significant starting point for this, but only a fully sovereign, independent and credible Iraqi government can move quickly on improving security and bringing normalcy back into the lives of most citizens.   The fastest way to move toward that goal would be for the U.S. to announce that it is starting its military withdrawal and does not intend to maintain long-term bases in Iraq. As long as American troops and political meddling define Iraqi politics, any new Iraqi government - even elected by the people - will be seen as a puppet regime. It would remain a target of Iraqi skepticism as well as armed resistance by Iraqis and other foreign militants. Starting the American military retreat from Iraq is important because American troops will continue to be a divisive and destabilizing force, just as the American military presence in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 war was a major provocation leading to Osama bin Laden-style resistance and terror. Washington could link the speed of its withdrawal to how fast Iraqis generate a credible political and security system, but should set 18 months as a target date for leaving the country. Such a strategy would have a good chance of impacting quickly and positively on several crucial dimensions of Iraq today.   It would show Iraqis that that they can soon anticipate the benefits of national sovereignty and a politically legitimate government that is neither protected nor choreographed by American viceroys. It would also spur Iraqis to reach faster agreement on key constitutional and power-sharing issues that remain undefined to the satisfaction of all. A legitimate Iraqi government can do what the mighty American army could not: mobilize the popular will necessary to restore day-to-day security and stop attacks against infrastructure facilities - oil, electricity and water networks.   The American experiment in Iraq unfortunately has accelerated the re-tribalization of the country. The former sense of Iraqi citizenship has been replaced by a growing allegiance to sect, tribe or ethnic group - Sunni, Shiite, Christian, Kurdish, Turkmen - as the units that define citizens. An American military and political exit would help to slow down or even reverse this national fragmentation into ethnic and religious subgroups, most of which also have armed militias.   America"s adventure in Iraq has generated fear and meddling by neighbors like Syria, Iran, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, some of whom find the U.S. in Iraq an easy target. A military withdrawal would ideally, instead, engage the neighbors" cooperation in working for Iraqi stability and cohesion, and also perhaps in forging regional security arrangements, including improving ties with Syria and Iran.   Similarly, a sovereign Iraq free of American troops would have a better chance of attracting the vital Arab and international assistance that has been denied the country for fear of being associated with the controversial U.S. presence. At the same time, American troops leaving Iraq would take the wind out of those insurgents and terrorists who are motivated primarily by liberating a part of the "Islamic realm" from foreign dominance.   It"s hard to think of an act that would generate as much positive hope for Iraqis during their delicate transition to sovereignty and normalcy as the announcement of the start of an American military withdrawal. If the anticipated good things happen as proposed above, George W. Bush would be able to proclaim "mission accomplished" for a second time.   16 Dec. 2005   Steps toward withdrawal in Iraq. (The Age)   It is unrealistic to believe the election in Iraq will signal the end of bloodshed and instability there. US President George W. Bush conceded as much when, amid growing opposition to the war, he called on Americans to be patient about the continuing presence of their troops. Bush must be explicit about a time frame for withdrawing the troops. This is made more urgent in light of his acknowledgment that the insurgents in Iraq "are not going to give up because of a successful election ... so we can expect violence to continue." There is little doubt that this will be the case as long as the U.S. and its allies occupy the country. If he is genuine about shaping a free Iraq that could be an "inspiration" to the region, Bush must cede responsibility for security to United Nations peacekeepers, who have the experience required to facilitate a smooth transition to democracy.   Nov. 23, 2005 (Reuters)   The leaders of Iraq"s political factions, meeting at a reconciliation conference in Cairo, have called for all foreign forces to set a timetable for their departure. Shi"ite, Sunni and Kurdish leaders all agreed they want the US-led forces out so Iraqi security forces can assume control. Sh"ite, Kurdish and Sunni officials say the Iraqi people are looking forward to the day when foreign forces will leave and when they can enjoy peace and stability.   November 20, 2005   Iraqis air grievances at Cairo conference. (Reuters)   Iraqi politicians have begun a three-day reconciliation conference on the political future of their country, airing immediately some of the disputes that have dragged Iraq close to civil war.   Shiite Muslim politicians have condemned the insurgency, which is led mainly by Sunni Muslims. However, a leading Sunni politician says resistance is a legitimate response to US occupation.   Iraqi President Jalal Talabani says religious extremists who advocate violence and associates of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein have no place in the political process.   But Harith al-Dhari, of the Muslim Clerics" Association, told the conference the Government is excluding people from jobs on ethnic and sectarian grounds.   Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is hosting the conference, says national reconciliation is the key to a successful political process in Iraq and to a gradual end to the presence of foreign forces. "The password for building the new Iraq is ensuring that all the sons of Iraq take part, without exception or marginalisation," he added.   The Arab League arranged the conference out of alarm that Iraq, once a pillar of the Arab community, is descending into chaos and towards sectarian conflict.   19 November 2005 (UN News)   Different Iraqi factions should reach understanding on national accord - Annan   To strengthen Iraq"s ongoing political process, the main elements of political and civil society must reach an understanding towards a national accord, Secretary-General Kofi Annan told delegates planning a Cairo conference on reconciliation in the war-wracked country.   It is my hope that this preparatory meeting will help the Iraqi parties agree on the next steps required to bring about mutual trust and a sense of shared responsibility, essential ingredients in enabling the people of Iraq to forge a national accord, as the foundation of a peaceful, united and democratic Iraq, he said in a message read by UN Iraq envoy Ashraf Qazi, the Secretary-General   Hailing the League of Arab States for its initiative to convene the Conference for Iraqi National Accord, Mr. Annan said regional initiatives have a crucial role to play in nurturing broad national dialogue and reconciliation in Iraq, in full respect of Iraq"s national sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.   The Secretary-General also pledged the UN"s support for an inclusive, participatory and transparent political process that is responsive to the aspirations of all of Iraq"s communities.   Echoing Mr. Annan"s message, Mr. Qazi, in his own speech, said the principal means of supporting and strengthening the political process in Iraq is to broaden it so that it brings in those groups that have not yet decided to participate.   This conference on Iraq will hopefully initiate a process in which serious differences of opinions on serious issues will not be barriers to dialogue, compromise and accord, he said. All those who are prepared to peacefully pursue their political objectives must participate in the endeavour to build the New Iraq in which their dreams and aspirations will find a place.   Mr. Qazi observed that Iraqis from different communities are often more candid when voicing their political positions to non-Iraqis than among themselves. To a great extent this is a matter of courtesy, but it can also impede the process of developing the essential base of understanding, trust and confidence for a viable national political process.   He called on all concerned to give priority to engaging each other in purposeful dialogue and in a manner that opens up discussion rather than closes it. This is the surest way to narrow the base for violence and extremism.   To foster a climate conducive to dialogue, he said human rights violations must cease. The abuse of human rights that we see on a daily basis through the resort to political violence on the one hand and inadequate controls on the conduct of security operations on the other, remains of very grave concern, he said. If not effectively addressed this situation can seriously impede the promotion of a national dialogue that can reach agreement on a national accord, he warned. Effectively addressing this situation may not be easy. But it is essential that this be done.
	View more stories