War Czar? What The Hell Is That?

[Love_Rhombus]

@Larry Borgia

“If only our constitution provided for some sort of Chief commander or something like that.”

–Colbert (paraphrased)

I hereby support Colbert’s suggestion for War Czar. He mentioned someone who knows Bush’s policies, knows the existing command structure, knows all the planning ideas, and has a reputation well known to the American public and people in Washington. He was personally commended by the President himself. My choice for War Czar.. What’s the worst that could happen?

[BrainGlutton]

@RTFirefly

According to the WaPo, the job is:
There is, in fact, a high government official already with the responsibility of issuing directions to the Pentagon, the State Department, and other agencies.

Indeed. His name is Dick Cheney.

[RTFirefly]

Our invasion of Iraq explained

Well, sort of.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

One candidate for czar explains his decision to turn down the opportunity:

General John Sheehan, via Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly:

We cannot “shorthand” this issue with concepts such as the “democratization of the region” or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to “win,” even as “victory” is not defined or is frequently redefined.

…We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan — and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board.

Oooof. Quick, someone in the administration needs to smear General John Sheehan, so that people like John Mace and the other apologistas here can explain how his opinion should be disregarded and discredited, and why he just wants to take “potshots” at Bush.

[ElvisL1ves]

And to those lauding Petraeus’ change in methods of storming a particular street as a “strategy” (that means you, Sam), Gen. Sheehan adds:

What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region.
,
Activities such as the current surge operations should fit into an overall strategic framework. There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources and support for stable, Western-oriented countries. These interests will require a serious dialogue and partnership with countries that live in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood.

That’s what strategy is. And it ain’t there.

There ain’t no plan !!!

[Darryl_Lict]

@Orbifold

I don’t know, “war czar” doesn’t sound impressive enough. The position needs a grander title. “Homeland Marshall”, or maybe “Grand Moff”.

I always thought the KKK had a real knack for ominous titles. I vote for “Imperial Wizard of War”. Or, perhaps we should just go back to the “Secretary of War”, which was what those damn peaceniks changed to the “Secretary of Defense” in 1947. Or maybe, we keep the “Secretary of Defense”, who runs the wars, but the “Secretary of War” thinks of new wars for us to get into.

[Little_Nemo]

Quick, someone in the administration needs to smear General John Sheehan

Expect to see FOX News “accidentally” call him General Cindy Sheehan before the weekend.

[GLWasteful]

@Darryl Lict

Or maybe, we keep the “Secretary of Defense”, who runs the wars, but the “Secretary of War” thinks of new wars for us to get into.

Quiet! Y’wanna give 'em ideas?

[TokyoBayer]

@tomndebb

Not in my book. Anyone who wants to play “good soldier” in the face of certain knowledge that he is promoting a cause that directly violates every value he has publicly championed for over a decade deserves more punishment than being allowed to simply resign and go home to write memoirs.

He is being punished. Don’t you know how tough it is on the lecture circuit? :rolleyes:

For the czar, this is a failure from the very top. It’s obvious that there has been no plan on what to do, so why is it taking people by surprise?

[Little_Nemo]

Or maybe, we keep the “Secretary of Defense”, who runs the wars, but the “Secretary of War” thinks of new wars for us to get into.

Considering their respective functions in this administration, maybe we could change Robert Gates’ title to Secretary of War and Tony Snow’s to Secretary of Defense.

[JohnM]

Small hijack, but SteveG1’s quote seemed a little off.

@SteveG1

We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were begining to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing, and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization.

Petronius

Love the sentiment, but the quote struck me as more 20th century. This guy agrees, and says that after reading all of Petronius’ surviving work, it just ain’t there.

So is Petronius the Roman Churchill, or Einstein, in that good quotes attach themselves to him for that certain je ne sais quois?

[Tuckerfan]

@Orbifold

I don’t know, “war czar” doesn’t sound impressive enough. The position needs a grander title. “Homeland Marshall”, or maybe “Grand Moff”.

You’re in luck, the official title is, wait for it, “Execution Manager.”

The new “execution manager,” as the White House termed the position, would be empowered to cut through the bureaucracy and talk directly with Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and other key figures to figure out what is needed to make progress on the ground.

Yeah, we’re doomed.

[jayjay]

Execution manager? Is that the guy who keeps the Sadrists from chanting when they hang old Baathist officials?

[Squink]

We Have A WINNER!

Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute has been chosen for President Bush’s newly created position to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[yanceylebeef]

He seems to have a pretty good grasp of what to do in Iraq

“We believe at some point, in order to break this dependence on the . . . coalition, you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward.

“You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq. It’s very difficult to do that when you have 150,000-plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country.”
Too bad that quote is from August 2005, and not last week. I’m sure he has been re-educated on the proper talking points. The Confimation process should be interesting, though.

[Tuckerfan]

@Squink

We Have A WINNER!

Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute has been chosen for President Bush’s newly created position to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I feel safer already.

[Billdo]

That’s it. After Bush ran out of retired generals who he could try to convince to take the job, he finds a serving officer and makes him an order he can’t refuse.

OK. Could someone explain to me how a three-star general in the White House is supposed to oversee the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the four-star CENTCOM, and the rest of the Pentagon.

[Squink]

@Billdo

OK. Could someone explain to me how a three-star general in the White House is supposed to oversee the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the four-star CENTCOM, and the rest of the Pentagon.

Well, he can do it, but it’ll take TIME. Say, six months or so, after his September confirmation by the senate.
We ought to be able to evaluate how the position’s working out by next March.

[BrainGlutton]

@Billdo

OK. Could someone explain to me how a three-star general in the White House is supposed to oversee the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs, the four-star CENTCOM, and the rest of the Pentagon.

And how will Petraeus feel about reporting to a man he outranks?

[LouisB]

@BrainGlutton

And how will Petraeus feel about reporting to a man he outranks?

Forget the rank, how does Petraeus feel about the entire asinine idea? For that matter, how does a man as smart as Petraeus feel about working for an absolute moron?