Wednesday, April 11, 2007

WaPost: 3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'

Excuse me, but isn't the president suppose to be the "Commander-in-Chief?" And if so, then why does President Bush need a "War Czar?" From the Washington Post:

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.

It would appear to me that the Bush administration is trying to find another scapegoat to pin this latest troop surge failure on, thus absolving President Bush from any blame or responsibility for getting the U.S. into this disaster of a war in Iraq. It is not the president's fault--it is the war czar's fault!

Of course, never mind that the president is the Commander-in-Chief....

No comments: