Bush seeks War Czar to oversee wars..

[JMS]

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; A01

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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776_pf.html

[Sarge]

I'll do it.

They'll both be over in a month

[Chump Bailey]

Screw it....

[Henry]

Uh ... isn't that Bush's job?

[Burgold]

Uh ... isn't that Bush's job?

That's what I was thinking.

[Larry]

Wow.

I clicked this link assuming this would have a link to an Onion article.

Second Henry's post.

[Burgold]

If he does succeed in doing this though, it will be a plus for Hillary's candidacy. A lot of folks are against a woman as President, because they don't like the idea of a Woman being Commander and Chief, especially a woman with the Clinton's noted disdain for the millitary. I don't think that is a valid point of view, but I do think it is out there.

[Midnight Judges]

Rumsfeld is available and he has a ton of experience. :doh:

[JMS]

It's interesting to me that even people who were advocates of his invasion policy, insiders who helped architect the "surge" such as Army Gen. Jack Keane are turning Bush down. I guess he was pissed at what the administration did to his "surge" plan watering it down to only 40,000 troops.

It's not that the NeoCons and Cheney are too hawkish or that these Generals think the war is unwinnable. It's that these Generals, not unlike our own Sarge here on this board, consider the NeoCons and Cheney too dovish and unwilling to commit enough troops and capital to win..

[Larry]

It's interesting to me that even people who were advocates of his invasion policy, insiders who helped architect the "surge" such as Army Gen. Jack Keane are turning Bush down. I guess he was pissed at what the administration did to his "surge" plan watering it down to only 40,000 troops.

It's not that the NeoCons and Cheney are too hawkish or that these Generals think the war is unwinnable. It's that these Generals, not unlike our own Sarge here on this board, consider the NeoCons and Cheney too dovish and unwilling to commit enough troops and capital to win..

No, I suspect that the reason they're having trouble finding volunteers is because they're smart enough to figure out that frankly, Cheney's still going to be in charge, and that after him the chain of command gets even more political, and that what the White House really is looking for is for somebody to take responsibility.

(Good thing they've still got Colin Powell in the administration. Somebody with the experience and credibility, and who can stand up to Cheney and the neocons.)

[jpillian]

It's not that the NeoCons and Cheney are too hawkish or that these Generals think the war is unwinnable. It's that these Generals, not unlike our own Sarge here on this board, consider the NeoCons and Cheney too dovish and unwilling to commit enough troops and capital to win..

Another possibility is they too can see the handwriting on the wall on this whole endeavor. Whether it is worthwhile or not worthwhile -- just or unjust -- good or bad --- the American peoples' opinion is that we should not be there anymore. Congress is by and large listening to its constituents opinions and as a result, the conclusion is pretty inevitable.

Who the heck wants to sign up to work a 100-hr a week job, at the end of your career, where your legacy is guaranteed to be to close out two, arguably failed wars?

[Larry]

All of that said, though. It does occur to me that if they could appoint such a person. Someone with the "street cred" of Colin Powell, and give him a lot of authority (think of the contract Danny game Marty), . . .

Would it have the effect of making the war policy less political? Could such a person actually get the White House and Congress to shut up and do what they're told? Could such a move actually result in our country having one, cohesive, war policy? (At least until the next election?)

[JMS]

All of that said, though. It does occur to me that if they could appoint such a person. Someone with the "street cred" of Colin Powell, and give him a lot of authority (think of the contract Danny game Marty), . . .

Would it have the effect of making the war policy less political? Could such a person actually get the White House and Congress to shut up and do what they're told? Could such a move actually result in our country having one, cohesive, war policy? (At least until the next election?)

Remember Gen. Jack Keane was saying this was winable only three months ago. He was the architect and proponent of the surge which Bush ultimately watered down and adopted.

I don't think Keane or these other hawks have decided in the last three months that this war is unwinable. I think they've decided Bush can't win it. I think you're right that they think Bush is looking for either a fall guy. Or a mouth peace to oversee their continued failed policy.

As for the American people. I think the American people don't want to under right failure. If someone put a plan for victory on the table that called for bold measures; it's not clear to me that plan would be dead on arrival yet.

Romney called for sending 100,000 more men into Iraq last weekend while he was critizing Pelosi. He doesn't say where those 100,000 guys will come from, or where the 100,000 who replace them will come from after first groups deployment is concluded. Still it's a start.

Currently the choice before the American people is fund continued failure and incompetence, or get out. That choice will evolve into Sacrifice for Victory, or Pull Out by the 2008 election.

[LOOPSKIN28]

Uh ... isn't that Bush's job?

I guess the Buck doesn't stop here anymore.....