Incompetence At the Highest Level

There is a very interesting article at the New York Times about Bolton's resignation. What's instructive is that it pretty well outlines his competencies.
Bolton is a neo-con ideologue who led the charge to invade Iraq. So one would expect him to have a command of his subject matter and particularly effective at selling his ideology to like minded. The problem is that the UN representative is a diplomatic post. Bolton has no diplomatic skills. He burned bridges with our closest allies at a time those relations were already at their lowest point in years. He openly insulted Sec'y General Annan which guaranteed unnecessary acrimony and opposition to any disfavored positions.
It's not that Bolton is incompetent. It's that he is incompetent as a diplomat. The person who placed him there, Dubya, is the man who is responsible, demonstrating malfeasance at the most important tasks set for a president.

The announcement on Monday of John R. Bolton’s decision to step down was greeted by United Nations officials with relief, while diplomats from other nations offered mixed assessments of his effectiveness during his 17 months as the American envoy. “ ‘No comment,’ he said with a smile,” Mark Malloch Brown, the deputy secretary general, said over his shoulder to reporters as he hustled to a meeting.


Mr. Malloch Brown had angered Mr. Bolton during the summer by accusing the United States of “stealth diplomacy” — turning to the United Nations when Washington needed it while showing public disdain for the institution. At the time, Mr. Bolton demanded that Secretary General Kofi Annan “personally and publicly” repudiate Mr. Malloch Brown’s remarks, but Mr. Annan stood by them.


A year ago, at a monthly lunch for Security Council ambassadors, Mr. Annan signaled how deep the divide had become by chastising Mr. Bolton for trying to “intimidate” him.


Security Council ambassadors said they respected Mr. Bolton’s professionalism and command of the subject matter, and thought he had represented the Bush administration’s foreign policy goals well.


On the other hand, they said his manner, often described as abrupt, unyielding and confrontational, had alienated traditional American allies and undercut American influence.


They said that in areas where he was clearly taking his instructions from Washington, he performed well, but that in pursuing the objective on which he planted his personal stamp — overhauling the sclerotic United Nations management — he had been unsuccessful.


But even Mr. Bolton’s success in championing the administration’s policy represented a problem for him: At the United Nations, that policy is perceived as disdainful of diplomacy and single-minded in its assertion of American interests.


“I think he was serious about the American objective here of reforming the United Nations, and he pushed hard,” said Wang Guangya, the Chinese ambassador. “But of course, sometimes in order to achieve the objective, you have to work together with others.”


Another Council envoy, Adamantios Vassilakis of Greece, said, “Sometimes it was not easy, but we managed to find a solution whenever I dealt with him.”


Augustine P. Mahiga, the ambassador of Tanzania, also a Council member, said Mr. Bolton’s style, which he described as “abrasive and not very helpful to amenable consensus,” had deepened the divisions between the developing world and the great powers.


“He will be remembered, of course, for his principled stand on various issues,” Mr. Mahiga said, “but at the same time, he was the person who could have done it differently in order to minimize the negative perceptions of the positions of the United States.”


Mr. Vassilakis said he thought Mr. Bolton had been particularly effective in obtaining backing for resolutions condemning North Korea’s nuclear program, but less so in gaining support for joint action against Iran’s nuclear program. “But then, Iran is more complicated,” he said.