Call it a stroke of genius, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said earlier this week that he hopes to insert language into the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill to require more cooperation between federal agencies doing work in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It must be a sad state of affairs when a congressional committee needs to craft a bill to be enacted into law to ensure that Department level agencies work closer.

The media, books by the likes of Bob Woodward, and the 911 Commission itself have been exposing the feuds and pettiness between the State and Defense Departments since shortly after September 11, 2001. So why is Congress acting now? An even bigger question: should Congress do anything about this? 

One could blame government bureaucracy, stovepipes, and political positioning, but the real blame lies with the President in both his capacity as Commander and Chief but more importantly as Chief Executive.  Not only does the President select the leaders of the cabinet departments, but he has the authority to remove them.  It is very simple:  live and play well in the sandbox or be replaced.  Clearly our Harvard Business School educated President was taught this simple lesson, or perhaps he missed that day.

Comments from Chairman Skelton like "You need all of the agencies working together," and "The military can't do it all" continue to highlight the serious concerns this Congress has of the Administration and the leadership of both Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.  But sources close to both the State and Defense Departments said the real battles existed well before the political transition in 2004 and were clearly associated with each departments' battle for responsibility in the region where the Defense Department continually refused to relinquish responsibility for reconstruction the State Department wanted to execute but was not prepared for.

While Chairman Skelton's bill appears to be a responsible approach to correct a President who has failed to to run his own cabinet smoothly, Congressional sources say this specious political maneuver could have been addressed sooner if the conviction was genuine.   They further explained their leadership was afraid to make simliar moves due to the political risks prior to 2004, but now public sentiment is ripe and the congressional response is timely, that is, for the election year.