I know everyone in the world already knows this, but as we, and (undoubtedly TPMCafe) prepare to decommission Bolton Watch (although, one should never stop watching John Bolton), let's report for a moment on Bolton's successor.

Bob Novak says it will be Zalmay Khalilzad, soon to be ex-Ambassador to Iraq.  Although what no one else is relaying is Novak's "footnote" that says that Andrew Card, former White House Chief of Staff, expressed interest in the job.

What would a Khalilzad ambassadorship mean for America, and the UN?

I doubt we'll see any bruising confirmation hearings over Ambassador Khalilzad - he's been confirmed to multiple embassies by the Senate, and with little dissension.  It would take something pretty shocking to make the US Senate, even under Joe Biden's chairmanship of the Foreign Relations Committee, change their tone, and that ammunition would have been loaded before he was shipped off to Iraq.

Much will be made about how Khalilzad, as a Muslim, will be a good emissary to the Muslim world.  But if this was true, we would keep him in Afghanistan, or Iraq, where his presence would soothe the Muslims of the world we need to be most concerned with, rather than the ambassadors of Qatar and Indonesia.  With a PhD from the U. of Chicago and a membership in the Project for a New American Century, Khalilzad will be rapidly fingered as a primary neocon player, and that's quite enough to make the Group of 77 and China think you are a loyal Bush/Cheney man.  

Still, Khalilzad will be more likely to play by the UN's rule of diplomatic etiquette, and in this way, it will be a smoother time for the United States at the UN.  The G-77 and China won't just dig in their heels on issues because Khalilzad is Khalilzad - they'll dig in their heels because he represents America.  That's a better situation than where we've been, especially on the critical but underreported UN reform issues that need to be bigger American priorities.

I don't think I'm simply going out on a limb here - check out this report that Dr. Khalilzad signed off to in 2000 when he was still at the RAND Corporation.  The report was supposed to be a bipartisan blueprint to manage national security for the winner of 2000's presidential contest:

In our view, sustaining support for this approach will require rebuilding the effectiveness of the UN as an institution and reestablishing US domestic support for the UN.  This will require paying the dues that the US owes to the UN, while pressing for needed institutional reforms.

That's a heck of a lot better than "losing ten floors."