Call me crazy, but don't we already have a "war czar"? And isn't he called the Commander in Chief?
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.
At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military....All three generals who declined the job have been to varying degrees administration insiders. Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, was one of the primary proponents of sending more troops to Iraq and presented Bush with his plan for a major force increase during an Oval Office meeting in December. The president adopted the concept in January, although he did not dispatch as many troops as Keane proposed.
Ralston, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was named by Rice last August to serve as her special envoy for countering the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group designated a terrorist organization by the United States.
Sheehan, a 35-year Marine, served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration and at one point was reportedly considered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He now works as an executive at Bechtel Corp. developing oil projects in the Middle East.
Three retired four-star generals said no to a direct request from the President of the United States. You don't have to come from a military family to understand just what a big deal that is. These are men who spent their entire life in service to this country, and they've all turned down a direct request from the Commander in Chief to come back and serve again during a time of great crisis.
But the real question we should be asking is why this position is needed in the first place. Take a look at how this is framed by the Post:
The administration's interest in the idea stems from long-standing concern over the coordination of civilian and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the U.S. government. The Defense and State departments have long struggled over their roles and responsibilities in Iraq, with the White House often forced to referee.
The White House has been "forced to referee." Brilliant. What, did Bush think he could claim the title of "wartime president" and "Commander in Chief" without actually performing the duties associated with those roles? This is his war, his fight. But he doesn't want to be responsible with managing any of the details. Even Fred Kagan, the architect of the president's "surge," doesn't seem to notice this disconnect:
The idea of someone overseeing the wars has been promoted to the White House by several outside advisers. "It would be definitely a good idea," said Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon. And I hope they pick the right guy. It's a real problem that we don't have a single individual back here who is really capable of coordinating the effort."
Is it 2008 yet?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
