Taken from an article at the Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776_pf.html

Quote :

"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."

So what is everyone else here's take on this? I'm not really comfortable with the idea that the administration keeps inventing new positions to deal with issues that are the president / cabinet's responsibility already.

Besides, the word means EMPEROR.

4/11/2007 10:11:18 AM

Czar ... sounds catchy to me. I like it

Just think about it, we'll be like the new Roman empire! We already are in some sort of fashion. Why not take hold of it? Of course, we all know what happened to the Roman empire, so there are definately some hesitation because of that.

4/11/2007 10:14:42 AM

one of the most important things for micro-managing anything is to create lots of new positions

4/11/2007 10:20:52 AM

the most important part of this is that nobody wants any part of the position

Quote :

"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. "

when so many high profile people are turning the job down, it says alot about the state of the war, and the administration as a whole.

4/11/2007 10:38:50 AM

It's also one more way for them to avoid the responsibility of dealing with the problem themselves don't you think?

4/11/2007 11:43:48 AM

Sinking ship.

4/11/2007 11:52:07 AM

Quote :

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going"

^^nope, i don't think....nobody wants to be dragged into this when it is so clearly going nowhere and the administration has so adamantly refused to even talk about withdrawal. These are 4 star generals here......I doubt shying away from responsibility is one of their dominant characteristics.

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

4/11/2007 11:53:34 AM

^ in shying away from responsibility, I was speaking of the Admin...

And yeah, I'd agree that these guys, the Generals, have a pretty good feel for what's going on and they don't want to be put in there as the future scapegoat for Bush & Kronies.

4/11/2007 12:27:42 PM

^10-4, I misunderstood........in that case, I totally agree. I actually thought about that. The administration hires the "war czar" to be in control of all tactical decisions......so they effectively shift blame for everything to him.

Problem is, anyone qualified for this position likely sees this as a strong possibility and won't take the job.

4/11/2007 1:14:10 PM

I don't understand. What is the Secretary of Defense supposed to be doing?

Has the White House discovered that Robert Gates is not a "loyal Bushie?"

4/11/2007 4:02:19 PM

Isn't there already an intelligence czar?

4/11/2007 6:47:13 PM

Yea, they'll hang whatever dumb sonambitch that takes this job out to dry.

4/11/2007 7:09:28 PM

some countries have a Prime Minister, who is the head of the executive branch, as well as a President who is essentially a 'War Czar' elected/appointed to carry out military objectives as deemed necessary by the civillian goernment.

4/11/2007 7:38:31 PM

this would seem unconstitutional to me.

4/11/2007 7:39:52 PM

Quote :

"Isn't there already an intelligence czar?"

And a Drug Czar.

And we all know how great and prestigious a position that is...

4/11/2007 9:52:44 PM

exactly what I was gonna say

lol

4/11/2007 10:37:20 PM

Since when did republican administrations expand government and its power?

I mean with the Dept. of Homeland Sec., the Intel "Czar", the War "Czar", isn't any of this odd?

4/12/2007 1:39:32 PM

google PNAC and look at their mission statements. scary stuff. we're going into iran if all goes as planned. kinda catchy.

4/12/2007 3:45:56 PM

no damn way..........

4/12/2007 3:53:43 PM

I bet this works jsut as well as the war on drugs too

4/12/2007 3:59:42 PM

4/12/2007 4:02:07 PM

Czar... Hrm...



Bad things happen to Czar's, right?

4/13/2007 1:11:39 AM

Quote :

"I bet this works jsut as well as the war on drugs too"

they fucked up in calling it a war on drugs. Thank god they haven't declared a war on crime yet.

4/13/2007 1:47:37 AM

Shhh. Don't let the terrorists know about the PNAC.

4/13/2007 3:05:02 AM

The war on drugs served it's purpose in the beginning (clean up Miami), but it has spiraled out of control on a scale Einstein couldn't even capture.

4/13/2007 3:09:25 AM

ummm. isn't this what the PRESIDENT is for? really, why do we need yet another "czar," much less for war? imagine how bad it would look to the world if we had a "war czar." At least right now we can say we aren't all about wars, even if it's a blatant lie, and still look decent. But when you have a "war czar," it gets a little bit harder to say such a thing. It's kind of like having a dick in your mouth while saying you never gave anyone a blow job.

4/13/2007 3:29:24 AM

what jcg said, above.

where did the SECDEF go?

he popped tall when the Walter Reed scandal broke, but then he disappeared again. woulnt a War Czar conflict the SECDEF's authority?

4/13/2007 3:33:45 AM

Quote :

"I don't understand. What is the Secretary of Defense supposed to be doing? Has the White House discovered that Robert Gates is not a "loyal Bushie?""

Basically. It sounds to me like Bush was forced to accept Gates as a reconcillatory choice. Now he doesn't want to tell them what they want to here so he gets neutralized.

See also:
Colin Powell

What's really great is that this "Reaganite/Small Government" President likes to create huge Bueracracies, apparently mainly to employ paedophiles and Bush cousins.

[Edited on April 13, 2007 at 9:51 AM. Reason : ...]

4/13/2007 9:46:32 AM

i really can't help but think this administration is trying to turn this govt into a monarchy

4/13/2007 9:51:01 AM