Flushed by their success in derailing the nomination of Ambassador Charles Freeman to the National Intelligence Council, the neocons have set their sights on another appointment, that of Ambassador Christopher Hill, who is currently the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, to be next US Ambassador to Iraq. The first salvo was fired earlier this week by Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard who questioned Ambassador Hill's diplomacy skills when really what Mr. Goldfarb is angry about is that Ambassador Chris Hill and Secretary Rice outmanuevered Dick Cheney and the neocons in the Bush Administration's approach to North Korea and the Ambassador has been openly critical of the neoconservative approach to long-standing international issues.

This weekend, the former Vice President got in on the act of Chris Hill bashing courtesy of CNN's John King:

KING: Before we get to another break, let me follow up on that point. You disagree with the overreliance, I think is a good term, a fair term, tell me if I'm wrong, on the diplomacy with the Europeans when it came to Iran. You also disagreed with the approach in the end to North Korea and taking them off the list of state sponsors of terrorism in exchange for, I believe your view is, for nothing, or for just false promises.

The man who led that effort, Chris Hill, the diplomat in charge then is now President Obama's choice to be the ambassador in Iraq. That's a tough job. Do you think Chris Hill is up to that job based on what he did in North Korea?

CHENEY: He's not the man I would have picked for that post. He doesn't have any experience in the region. He's never served in that part of the world before. He doesn't speak the language. He's got none of the skills and talents that Ryan Crocker had, who was our last ambassador, who did a superb job, deserves as much credit as Dave Petraeus in terms of how that process worked during the surge that led to the success we've seen now in Iraq.

So I think it's a choice that -- a choice I wouldn't have made. I did not support the work that Chris Hill did with respect to North Korea.

That last sentence is telling. That's what they are upset about. They were circumvented on North Korea.

Today five Republican Senators (Brownback, Ensign, Kyl, Bond, and Inhofe) sent a letter (pdf) to the President urging that the nomination be withdrawn. They argue:

We do not believe that now is the time to appoint an ambassador who may need a crash course in Iraqi affairs. There are today, both within the Foreign Service and outside of it, a number of individuals who possess much greater qualifications than Ambassador Hill. As our next representative must arrive in Baghdad ready to tackle an array of difficult and potentially explosive issues, including Arab-Kurdish tensions, refugee resettlement and oil distribution to name a few, America must have an Ambassador who has the requisite knowledge and experience with Iraq, the Middle East and the military to ensure that we do not repeat the many costly mistakes that previous misjudgments have produced.

While I am indeed relieved that these five Senators are at last admitting "costly mistakes", it seems that they are looking for a pro-consul more than they are searching a diplomat.

What Ambassador Hill doesn't know about Iraq, he can learn. What Ambassador Hill knows about the nature of diplomacy amidst fluid and difficult situations and that skill is rarer. His experience has been in Africa, in the Balkans, in Poland, and notably in the Korean peninsula. The post in Baghdad must be seen as our forward post towards Tehran. Ambassador Hill knows the politics of nuclear disarmament as well as anyone. During his career, he has squared off against the likes of Milosevic and Kim Jong-Il. Ambassador Hill in his work in Africa and in the Balkans understands the nature of working to build lasting coalitions. His analytical talents are top-notched.

The Washington Independent notes that the Obama Administration intends to proceed with the nomination and that Senator Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations, intends to support the choice.

Democrats on and off the committee have rallied behind Hill. “By nominating Ambassador Hill to serve in Bagdad, President Obama has chosen one of our very best to help bring lasting peace to Iraq,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the committee chairman, in a statement late last week. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called Hill “precisely the kind of diplomat America needs in the Middle East and Iraq.”

The former ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, is widely credited with harmonizing the embassy’s relations with the U.S. military after his 2007 arrival in Baghdad. Crocker worked closely with Generals David Petraeus and Raymond Odierno to bring cohesion to U.S. policy that had previously suffered from compartmentalization and even occasional civil-military acrimony. An Arabic speaker with nearly two decades of experience as an ambassador in the region, Crocker’s chief job in 2008 was to negotiate a basing accord with the Iraqi government called the Status of Forces Agreement. While the Iraqis insisted on including a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal in the accord against the wishes of the Bush administration, Crocker guided the negotiations to a successful conclusion. He left Iraq in January.

Obama administration officials recognized the burden Crocker inadvertently bequeathed to his successor. “There’s not another Ryan Crocker,” one said.

But veteran diplomats were less concerned that there needs to be. “It’s true that [Hill's] got no experience” in the region, said Ronald Neumann, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and veteran of several diplomatic positions in the region, including service in Iraq. “But he brings two very important skills critical to being an ambassador in Baghdad: One, he’s got a lot of background negotiating with really difficult people, and two, he knows how to maneuver in Washington.” Neumann, currently the president of the American Academy of Diplomacy, a diplomats’ lobby group, said that Hill would be ably assisted by “the capable people on his staff,” particularly incoming Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Ford, a longtime political counselor in Baghdad who also worked closely with Neumann.

“The staff can help with the substance,” Neumann said, “but if you don’t have bureaucratic weight to deal with [Washington], all the area knowledge won’t save you.”

Ambassador Hill deserves confirmation. As for the neocons, shouldn't they be working on the Project for the Next American Disaster rather than trying to derail nominations unless that objective is now one in the same.