Administration seeking War Czar

Remove all ads!

I found this and realized it just had to make it's way here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html

 

I find it odd that the decider who decides what's to be decided needs a war czar at all. What does a "Commander in Chief" need a war czar for? To carry his field marshal's baton? Kiss his behind?

No, in fact, it's not odd at all. The inofficial job description is: "Needed: Walking target for criticism, and a scapegoat to deflect criticism from the president. Responsibilities: Everything. Powers & Influence: Limited by existing departmental realms, vice presidential ambition and deciders decisions."

It's no surprise no one wants the job -- and be ground down between Cheney's overpowered office, the State Department and the Pentagon, and the president - not to mention the utter mess on the ground that's quite probably beyond America's powers to fix.

 

Very much what I was thinking. Why would anyone volunteer to be appointed to the position of head scapegoat within an administration that virtually exhausted the unwitting scapegoats they already had? Hmmm a month of pseudo-power followed by a possible prison sentence and losing everything or keeping my dignity, honor, and wealth? Yep really hard decision.

 

As Sheehan said, who would like to go through that job, try the unattainable, probably in opposition to Cheney, get a gastric ulcer, migraine, depression -- to be rewarded with a presidential medal of freedom with extra vermouth for sacrifice and suffering, and a ****ed up rep and CV.

 

Sadly, I must agree. What we are left with is selecting which of the bad options we dislike the least. Which is the equivalent of asking someone which s--- sandwich they'd like for lunch.

Actually, I think the administration is done looking for scapegoats, and has instead decided to run out the clock on Iraq. The republicans know they are done, and are most likely going to hold off on doing anything and then hand the baton off to the (likely Democratic) 2008 administration. Then they'll turn around and say, "See - the Democrats pulled out! We would have won if we stayed! The Democrats are once again acting like the bunch of pussies that they are!"

I'm not saying that I'm surprised that they'd twist the truth - we already know that they lie. But if they do try and throw this on the Dems lap - that's just evil.

 

Vietnam redux.

'the GVN would've survived if only the Democratic congress hadn't cut funding!'

 

Perhaps if they had a good military person to oversee the operation from the beginning, they'd have more results by now...

 

Except the parties would be reversed this time. JFK and LBJ were the two presidents that began and then increased our presence in Vietnam. It was Nixon that ordered the pull out. Of course, that was in an age when the Republicans still favored smaller government, so perhaps it's not fair to compare Nixon with modern Republicans.

I'm not so sure. You see, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were always around, and were supposedly involved in the war planning. However, when the war first started it was made clear to everyone that this war was going to be done according to Bush & Co. Bush even fired a few generals who disagreed with him early on.

So your statement would only be true if such a person was appointed and empowered to make decisions that were contrary to the neo-con position. I don't think any person would have been given that authority, and without it, there just would have been a different face of the current policy.

 

Sure, the circumstances are different, but it's the same rhetorical strategy.

 

The daily Show depicts it nicely: The job is at the intersection of the offices of the Secretary of defense, The Commander in Chief and Joint Chiefs of Staff....

Watch the whole clip here (.wmv format)

 

Ret. General Sheehan: Why I Declined To Serve.

Basically he sais that the Administration is still engaged in ideological infighting over foreign policy that has not been resolved and that three incompatible and irreconcilable views on what the US strategy are being held in the cabinet. That is outright scary. Sheehan is quite damning: </font>

1. His describing of "Cabinet-level personalities" as not having an overarching strategic concept and
2. that activities such as the current surge operations should, but by implication do not, fit into an overall strategic framework.

In his words:

"I won't serve until the White House gets its act togeter and moves beyond day-to-day operations, and starts thinking up a concept and cooperating. And I certainly won't go wear myself out in a cabinet-positon attempting to fix the shortcomings of my superiors, because I cannot do that." Ouch.

They sit there in the cabinet meetings, talking past each other, and that since 911. And they do not cooperate. And for an inexplicable reason the president doesn't force them to. Probably because he doesn't notice? What Sheehan describes is an inability to govern or incompetence.

That the Administration didn't develop a unified or even coherent and sustainable strategic concept (as opposed to a primarily rhetorical 'Presidential Freedom Agenda') is underlined by their stance toward the ISG report that presented such a concept. They found it ideologically incompatible, denounced it, and instead preferred a tactical operation -- the surge that by bringing localised success would turn the tide of battle. And now they are fighing the surge to victory, talking point by talking point. Only keep clapping, and Tinker Bell won't die!

A success in the surge is as meaningless as Manstein's brilliant maneuvering at the eastern front that in face of the strategic situation only delayed the inevitable, and Sheehan sais that quite clearly. It is telling enough that that surge*, defying any textual reading, has already been caracterised as open-ended, as in permanent.

*1 : to rise and fall actively : TOSS <a ship surging in heavy seas>
2 : to rise and move in waves or billows : SWELL <the sea was surging>

[ April 16, 2007, 12:01: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Heh, "Galactic Battle Führer"...

This is all such a mess I don't even know how to comment. However, I do think any kind of solution will have to involve a huge mea culpa by the American press -- including outfits like the NYTimes, WashPost, etc -- which has mostly enabled the Bush Administration to define the issues according to their own deeply flawed logic. It seems to me there's a structural flaw in American public debate that needs to be addressed if such things are to be prevented in the future.

 

Interesting bit today be the WaPo's Dan Fromkin that can be summed up as Why a war Czar or Who killed the NSC?:

So these loonies have wrecked and practically abolished interagency cooperation, because Rummy had to have it his way, with the tacit approval of the VP's office and evidently the president as well, and now they find it doesn't work.

It fits the picture. Didn't the State Department do post-war planning that was ignored by the hawks in the Pentagon, Whitehouse and VP's office -- 'not invented here' and 'it's them (State), the enemy' (no kidding), and instead of State's experts and other experienced personnel they sent the more docile interns from the AEI (again, that is not a joke) to rebuild Iraq, with the well known disastrous consequences?
A government where the hawks are running their policy and where the State Department is trying to run foreign policy, while constantly being undermined by the hawks for not being bellicose and hostile enough the world's evildoers - and it doesn't work? Now that must be a surprise.

It must be a special brand of moon howling maniac to allow for such a FUBAR to happen, and especially to make it happen.

Pion,

The above said, I strongly agree. A good deal of this happened in plain sight, and nobody cared or dared to probe into it or even look closer. The fifth estate slept, and under GOP dominance there were no cheks and ballances at all. Lawmakers clearly were not earning their salaries. It was much alike in journalism. Neither the media, nor congress or the senate and ultimately a disinterested eletorate did much about it for years. It is now only slowly changing.

[ April 16, 2007, 16:54: Message edited by: Ragusa ]