No one wants to be the "War Tsar"

[Scrim]

Three retired generals approached by the White House about a new high-profile post overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and reporting directly to the president have rejected the proposed post, leaving the administration struggling to find anyone of stature willing to take it on.
One of the four-star generals said he declined because of the chaotic way the war was being run and because **** Cheney, the vice-president and the leading hawk in the Bush administration, retained more influence than pragmatists looking for a way out.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2055122,00.html



One of the retired generals approached, Marine General John Sheehan, told the Washington Post: "The very fundamental issue is they don't know what the hell they're going."

Well everything will be OK now, as they've changed the name to "Execution Manager".

[CPLHUNTER]

Pick me...how much does it pay?

[Dasein]

I don't blame them. I wouldn't want to be made official adminsitration scapegoat, either.

[Jobu]

The very fundamental issue is they don't know what the hell they're going.

Either that's a typo or this highly respected General went to the George W. Bush school of public speaking.

Personally I don't see a need for another layer of beaurocracy to be dropped onto the war fighting capabilities of the country.

[Atlantic Friend]

No one wants to be the Scapegoat or to have to perform daily miracles while the administration ebbs away from the management of this conflict - is that such a surprise ?

[Gman3ID]

x2, more beaurocracy doesn't help, Another great idea from Hadley.

[name already taken]

George Tenet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_J._Tenet)'s got experience as political scapegoat. I heard he will have spare time once his book will be published. Maybe they will ask him to put this vast experience to the service of his country, who knows ?

When Bush came to Quebec city (http://commondreams.org/headlines01/0419-02.htm) to "negociate" NAFTA in april 2001, I had the same feeling the generals have now: its a good show but they don't have a clue.

[Rictor]

Maybe they would have more luck with a catchy new name for the position? I nominate Conflict Caesar as the alternative.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

This does seem like a pretty silly idea. The thing holding us back in both theaters of this war is not the enemy overseas, it's political pressure against the war at home. Unless the function of the "War Tsar" is to keep the other side of the isle from working towards capitulation, it would seem to be a waste of time.

[Dasein]

Another thing to consider is that the War Czar would have such an ill-defined position that it would render the position all but impotent. Does the War Czar outrank the Secretary of Defense? State? What about the Joint Chiefs? All I see is many departmental struggles and butting heads as people fight to protect their areas of authority. If I were a general who was now looking at some well earned retirement spent with my grandkids and going fishing, the last thing I'd want is to be made War Czar.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Another thing to consider is that the War Czar would have such an ill-defined position that it would render the position all but impotent. Does the War Czar outrank the Secretary of Defense? State? What about the Joint Chiefs? All I see is many departmental struggles and butting heads as people fight to protect their areas of authority. If I were a general who was now looking at some well earned retirement spent with my grandkids and going fishing, the last thing I'd want is to be made War Czar.

I agree -it seems to me that we've got more than enough generals and departments in place already. You'd think that by now, we'd have enough people and resources to run a war. What's this guy's job gonna be, just to sit around an put powerpoint slides together to show at the White House?

[ElHombre]

Already posted (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109503).


What's this guy's job gonna be?...

To take the blame. Nothing more. Which is why no one wants the job. Which is why even Gen. Jack Keane (who helped come up with the current 'stratgey' of the surge) wouldn't touch it. :lol:

[Calanen]

Maybe if they offered a 5th star people would say yes. But only maybe...

[JJC]

The title of the thread reminded me of how this week some of my professors were arguing against the use of the word "Tsar" by the U.S. government. My criminology professor was arguing what example do we set when we create something like the "Drug Tsar" or "Terrorism Tsar." I think it's stupid to argue over the word Tsar.

I don't get it what is the point of this "War Tsar"? Will this magical, macho titled position solve all of the problems that the General Staff and Generals already in charge of the wars are trying to manage?

[ElHombre]

I don't get it what is the point of this "War Tsar"? Will this magical, macho titled position solve all of the problems that the General Staff and Generals already in charge of the wars are trying to manage?

Read my previous post. ;-)

[Rictor]

This does seem like a pretty silly idea. The thing holding us back in both theaters of this war is not the enemy overseas, it's political pressure against the war at home. Unless the function of the "War Tsar" is to keep the other side of the isle from working towards capitulation, it would seem to be a waste of time.

Oh? Please do explain. Because from where I'm standing, Bush has had a free hand for four years now. Literally, carte blanche - anything short of nuking the place has been approved without a peep. The Democrats have signed every cheque he's asked from, and only now, four years on, have included some vague stipulation about quantifying progress which we both know they're not going to follow up on once 2008 comes around. But they still signed off on the money. Every scandal, every blunder, every screw-up, and there have been many, has been neatly ignored. In fact, I can hardly imagine how they could have been, or continue to be, more accommodating.

The Democrats may not have actively prevented the war, which I consider to be their failing, but blaming them is for the sh*t hitting the fan is simply absurd. Aren't conservatives kind of big on accountability? Or does that only apply to other people?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Oh? Please do explain. Because from where I'm standing, Bush has had a free hand for four years now. Literally, carte blanche - anything short of nuking the place has been approved without a peep. The Democrats have signed every cheque he's asked from, and only now, four years on, have included some vague stipulation about quantifying progress which we both know they're not going to follow up on once 2008 comes around. But they still signed off on the money. Every scandal, every blunder, every screw-up, and there have been many, has been neatly ignored. In fact, I can hardly imagine how they could have been, or continue to be, more accommodating.

The Democrats may not have actively prevented the war, which I consider to be their failing, but blaming them is for the sh*t hitting the fan is simply absurd. Aren't conservatives kind of big on accountability? Or does that only apply to other people?

Precisely 123456

Going back to the original post why not just appoint a 'War Lord'? The Afghans will at least recognize the importance of his position :)

[ElHombre]

Oh? Please do explain. Because from where I'm standing, Bush has had a free hand for four years now. Literally, carte blanche - anything short of nuking the place has been approved without a peep.

Good, good...


The Democrats have signed every cheque he's asked from and only now, four years on, have included some vague stipulation about quantifying progress which we both know they're not going to follow up on once 2008 comes around. But they still signed off on the money. Every scandal, every blunder, every screw-up, and there have been many, has been neatly ignored. In fact, I can hardly imagine how they could have been, or continue to be, more accommodating.

The Democrats may not have actively prevented the war, which I consider to be their failing, but blaming them is for the sh*t hitting the fan is simply absurd. Aren't conservatives kind of big on accountability? Or does that only apply to other people?

Errr... Have you forgotten that it's been the Republican party in charge of Congress for the first six years of the Bush admin? None of those 'requests' from the White House would have seen the light of day without the Rs in the Capitol backing it.