Author Topic: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks  (Read 1670 times)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« on: April 10, 2007, 10:49:22 PM »
3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'
Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan
By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007

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.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once. Officials said they are still considering options for how to reorganize the White House's management of the two conflicts. If they cannot find a person suited for the sort of specially empowered office they envision, they said, they may have to retain the current structure.

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 highest-ranking White House official responsible exclusively for the wars is deputy national security adviser Meghan O'Sullivan, who reports to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and does not have power to issue orders to agencies. O'Sullivan plans to step down soon, giving the White House the opportunity to rethink how it organizes the war effort.

Unlike O'Sullivan, the new czar would report directly to Bush and to Hadley and would have the title of assistant to the president, just as Hadley and the other highest-ranking White House officials have, the sources said. The new czar would also have "tasking authority," or the power to issue directions, over other agencies, they said.

To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Besides Sheehan, sources said, the White House or intermediaries have sounded out retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who also said they are not interested. Ralston declined to comment; Keane confirmed he declined the offer, adding: "It was discussed weeks ago."

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to help salvage a disastrous war. "Who's sitting on the bench?" he asked. "Who is there to turn to? And who would want to take the job?"

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.

In an interview yesterday, Sheehan said that Hadley contacted him and they discussed the job for two weeks but that he was dubious from the start. "I've never agreed on the basis of the war, and I'm still skeptical," Sheehan said. "Not only did we not plan properly for the war, we grossly underestimated the effect of sanctions and Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people."

In the course of the discussions, Sheehan said, he called around to get a better feel for the administration landscape.

"There's the residue of the Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did," he said. "And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence." Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.

Gordon Johndroe, a National Security Council spokesman, would not discuss contacts with candidates but confirmed that officials are considering a newly empowered czar.

"The White House is looking at a number of options on how to structure the Iraq and Afghanistan office in light of Meghan O'Sullivan's departure and the completion of both the Iraq and Afghanistan strategic reviews," he said. He added that "No decisions have been made" and "a list of candidates has not been narrowed down."

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."

Other variations are under consideration. House Democrats have put a provision in their version of a war spending bill that would designate a coordinator to oversee all assistance to Iraq. That person, who would report directly to the president, would require Senate confirmation; the White House said it opposes the proposal because Rice already has an aid coordinator.

Some administration critics said the ideas miss the point. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," said Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, who is now a vice president at the Brookings Institution. "So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong."

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #1 on: April 10, 2007, 11:06:50 PM »
Question: Who do you put in charge of a train wreck?  ???

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31866
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2007, 12:37:54 AM »
Willing scapegoats wanted, step right up :D

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2007, 11:42:24 AM »
Where have all the chicken hawks and arm chair generals gone?  :-[

If the lives of servicemen and women weren't being wasted (yes, I said wasted) this would be laughable.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2007, 09:37:40 PM »
**CRICKETS**
w

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22728
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2007, 09:46:30 PM »
 ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)


I'm not rolling my eyes........just looking around for responses.   ;D

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #6 on: April 11, 2007, 09:51:54 PM »
That's just craaaaazy!   :-\
w

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #7 on: April 11, 2007, 09:55:05 PM »
Maybe one of the Bush apologists here will volunteer for the job.  :D

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #8 on: April 11, 2007, 10:01:59 PM »
I can see Rooster sprucing up his resumé as we type.  ;D
w

rockyfortune

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1939
  • "look, it's the drunk piano player."
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2007, 05:55:59 AM »
Democrats poked fun at the White House for searching for an official to oversee the wars. "Someone needs to tell Steve Hadley that position is filled -

it's the commander in chief, unless the Decider's become the Delegator," said Rep. Rahm

Emanuel (D., Ill.).

footloose and fancy free

Old_Rooster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
  • SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2007, 06:01:27 AM »
I can see Rooster sprucing up his resumé as we type.  ;D

Only if they give me authority to use NUKES!
Benjamin Pearson-Pedo

ribonucleic

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5158
  • I bring you ultimate reality!
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #11 on: April 12, 2007, 07:22:37 AM »
I can see Rooster sprucing up his resumé as we type.  ;D

Why not?

He's probably more qualified than Michael Brown was.

"Heckuva job there, Roostie!"

Old_Rooster

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2380
  • SquadFathers mom gave me a BJ
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #12 on: April 12, 2007, 07:24:43 AM »
Why not?

He's probably more qualified than Michael Brown was.

"Heckuva job there, Roostie!"
Everyone in the city that has a car will be given a horse, no more car bombs.
And i'll apologize to them but everyone will go naked in public for 1 year, no more strapping bombs under those black gowns.
The ladies can still cover their faces in traditional garb.
and they will reply to our troops SIR YES SIR!
Benjamin Pearson-Pedo

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2007, 10:00:04 PM »
Why I Declined To Serve
By John J. Sheehan
Monday, April 16, 2007

Service to the nation is both a responsibility and an honor for every citizen presented with the opportunity. This is especially true in times of war and crisis. Today, because of the war in Iraq, this nation is in a crisis of confidence and is confused about its foreign policy direction, especially in the Middle East.

When asked whether I would like to be considered for the position of White House implementation manager for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I knew that it would be a difficult assignment, but also an honor, and that this was a serious task that needed to be done. I served as the military assistant to the deputy secretary of defense in the mid-1980s and more recently as commander in chief of the Atlantic Command during the Cuban and Haitian migrant operation and the reconstruction of Haiti. Based on my experience, I knew that a White House position of this nature would require interagency acceptance. Cabinet-level agencies, organizations and their leadership must buy in to the position's roles and responsibilities. Most important, Cabinet-level personalities must develop and accept a clear definition of the strategic approach to policy.

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. In my view, there are essentially three strategies in play simultaneously.

The first I call "the Woody Hayes basic ground attack," which is basically gaining one yard -- or one city block -- at a time. Given unconstrained time and resources, one could control the outcome in Iraq and provide the necessary security to move on to the next stage of development.

The second strategy starts with security but adds benchmarks for both the U.S. and Iraqi participants and applies time constraints that should guide them toward a desired outcome. The value of this strategy is that everyone knows the quantifiable and measurable objectives that fit within an overall strategic framework.

The third strategy takes a larger view of the region and the desired end state. Simply put, where does Iraq fit in a larger regional context? The United States has and will continue to have strategic interests in the greater Middle East well after the Iraq crisis is resolved and, as a matter of national interest, will maintain forces in the region in some form. The Iraq invasion has created a real and existential crisis for nearly all Middle Eastern countries and created divisions among our traditional European allies, making cooperation on other issues more difficult. In the case of Iran, we have allowed Tehran to develop more policy options and tools than it had a few years ago. Iran is an ideological and destabilizing threat to its neighbors and, more important, to U.S. interests.

Of the three strategies in play, the third is the most important but, unfortunately, is the least developed and articulated by this administration.

The day-to-day work of the White House implementation manager overseeing Iraq and Afghanistan would require a great deal of emotional and intellectual energy resolving critical resource issues in a bureaucracy that, to date, has not functioned well. 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. 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.

It would have been a great honor to serve this nation again. But after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. 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.

The writer is a retired Marine Corps general.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2007, 07:00:33 AM »
one would think that with the surge going so well, they'd be fighting for the job.








hAhahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22728
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #15 on: April 16, 2007, 07:19:50 AM »
one would think that with the surge going so well, they'd be fighting for the job.








hAhahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa

30 minutes after the Titantic hit an iceberg they were interviewing people for the captains job....but no takers.

headhuntersix

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17271
  • Our forefathers would be shooting by now
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #16 on: May 16, 2007, 01:27:01 PM »
I'm still not clear about his job.....we have all this in the unified chain of command i mean whats he supposed to do..whatever...... ::) when is the election :(
L

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19434
Re: Wanted: War Czar . . . um, thanks but no thanks
« Reply #17 on: May 16, 2007, 01:29:16 PM »
Bush Taps Skeptic of Buildup as 'War Czar'
Lt. Gen. Lute Accepts Position Others Spurned
By Peter Baker and Robin Wright

President Bush tapped Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute yesterday to serve as a new White House "war czar" overseeing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, choosing a low-key soldier who privately expressed skepticism about sending more troops to Iraq during last winter's strategy review.

In the newly created position, Lute will coordinate often disjointed military and civilian operations and manage the Washington side of the same troop increase he resisted before Bush announced the plan in January. Bush hopes an empowered aide working in the White House and answering directly to him will be able to cut through bureaucracy that has hindered efforts in Iraq.

The selection capped a difficult recruitment process for the White House, as its initial candidates rejected the job. At least five retired four-star generals approached by the White House or intermediaries refused to be considered. Lute, a three-star general now serving as chief operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in effect will jump over many superiors as he moves to the West Wing and assumes authority to deal directly with Cabinet secretaries and top commanders.

"General Lute is a tremendously accomplished military leader who understands war and government and knows how to get things done," Bush said in a statement.

In choosing Lute, Bush picked a key internal voice of dissent during the administration review that led to the troop increase. Reflecting the views of other members of the Joint Chiefs, Lute argued that a short-term "surge" would do little good and that any sustained increase in forces had to be matched by equal emphasis on political and economic steps, according to officials informed about the deliberations.

Lute believed the situation in Iraq reflected the same mistakes as the ineffective and disorganized response to Hurricane Katrina, according to a source familiar with the debate. Like others at the Pentagon, he was also irked because civilian agencies, in his view, had not done nearly enough to help stabilize Iraq. And he was outspoken about the increasing strains on the U.S. military, officials said.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said Lute raised his concerns during talks before his selection. "He had the same skepticism a lot of us had," Hadley said. "That's one of the reasons we designed the strategy the way we did." By joining the White House, Hadley said, Lute can ensure that the economic and political elements of the plan are implemented. "In some sense, he's part of the cure for the problems he was concerned about."

Until Bush decided this spring to create the position, the highest-ranking White House official working exclusively on Iraq and Afghanistan was a deputy national security adviser reporting to Hadley. Lute, by contrast, will have the rank of assistant to the president, just as Hadley does, and report directly to Bush, while also holding the title of deputy national security adviser.

The new war czar will consult with generals and diplomats in the field each morning, then join Hadley in briefing Bush and spend the rest of the day talking with officials such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to resolve any issues. "The goal is same-day service -- identify the problem in the morning and fix it in the afternoon," Hadley said. Unlike an earlier version of the plan, Hadley said, Lute will oversee both policy and implementation, assisted by a staff of 11.

The position does not require congressional approval, but Lute will need Senate approval because he is an active-duty officer. Hadley said he is not concerned that a three-star officer will be directing superiors. "The issue is not the number of stars," he said.

Some Iraq experts were encouraged. "This is an unusually talented guy," said Ellen Laipson, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, who returned from Iraq yesterday. "He's one of those intellectual soldiers who also exudes strong personal leadership qualities."

Yet Lute will face enormous obstacles four years into the war. "The most serious problem everyone has in any coordinated approach to Iraq is that the problems are beyond his control -- including relations between the White House and Congress," said Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "He is also a coordinator who works for a White House that has no long-term plan or strategy."

That was the reason given by other generals who turned down the job, including retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan. "I wish the guy luck," Sheehan said of Lute yesterday. "He's got his work cut out for him."

Critics said the appointment underscores Bush's failures. "Whatever the name of the position is, this proves the president is throwing in the towel when it comes to directing the military, and is giving up his constitutional role," said Jon Soltz, co-founder of the antiwar VoteVets.org. "The troops are now depending on Lt. Gen. Lute to do something the president wouldn't -- listen to commanders who are telling him we need more diplomacy, not escalation."

Lute, 54, a native of Michigan City, Ind., graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1975 and later earned a master's degree from Harvard University. He fought in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and then spent most of the next decade rotating between unit commands and high-profile Pentagon assignments. He commanded a multinational peacekeeping brigade in Kosovo for six months in 2002.

In June 2004, Lute was named operations director at the U.S. Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, then moved last September to serve the same role for the Joint Chiefs. He cites ancient Greek historian Thucydides as his favorite military scholar for helping him understand the connection between civil society and armed forces.

In an interview with Charlie Rose of PBS in January 2006, Lute said the military wanted "to see a smaller, lighter, less prominent U.S. force structure in Iraq," both to undercut the perception of occupation and to prevent what he called "dependency syndrome" -- the notion that U.S. forces will do what is necessary and therefore local forces do not need to step up.

Ultimately, he said, Iraqis need to forge a political solution. "Our purpose is not fundamentally to draw down U.S. forces, but rather to produce a durable, reasonable solution in Iraq," Lute said. "And that absolutely hinges on the ability of the Shia, apparently the simple majority Shia, to produce a compromise solution that is inclusive of the other two major parties, the Sunni and the Kurds."

Americans Against Escalation in Iraq instantly developed a newspaper ad yesterday that cites a similar quote Lute gave to the Financial Times in 2005, asserting that at some point "you simply have to back off and let the Iraqis step forward," and that undercutting the perception of occupation in Iraq is "very difficult" to do "when you have 150,000-plus, largely Western, foreign troops occupying the country."