posted on April 12, 2007 06:06:23 AM
No Takers For Bush "War Czar"
NEW YORK, April 11, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bush administration is seeking a "war czar" to oversee the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But so far, the Washington Post reports, it's having a hard time finding anyone willing to take the job.
At least three retired four-star generals, the Post says, have been approached by the White House, but all declined to be considered for the high-powered position, highlighting the administration's problems in convincing "top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military."
One of those who spurned the job, retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, was outspoken about his reasons for turning it down.
"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said Sheehan, a former top NATO commander. Sheehan said he believes that hawks like Vice President Cheney have more influence in the White House than those looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks.' "
Sources said the others contacted by the White House were Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who both said they were not interested.
The idea for creating the new position follows concern over longstanding disputes between civilian and military officials in Iraq. The war czar would have the authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, State Department and other agencies.
posted on April 12, 2007 08:34:00 AM
Gee....I'd think there would be TONS of dems/liberal military people fighting for this position.
Especially since for four years now they've been critical of how things have been run.....
here's their chance.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 12, 2007 10:31:37 AM
If Bush is Commander in Chief, why does he need a War Czar to take over? Did he dig himself a hole he cannot get out of?
posted on April 12, 2007 10:50:51 AM
"War Czar" Will Be A 4-Star Nagger
WASHINGTON, April 12, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) By CBS News national security correspondent David Martin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To people who live outside the Washington Beltway, the White House search for a "war czar" to coordinate strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan may seem like just another bureaucratic shuffle. In reality, it is a confession that in the fifth year of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration still has not figured out how to harness all the agencies of the U.S. government into a unified war effort.
Or, as Defense Secretary Gates put it, "one of the arguments that we hear frequently and frankly are very sympathetic with is that we and the State Department are about the only parts of the government that are at war."
The National Security Council and the job of National Security Adviser to the President, currently held by Stephen Hadley, was created decades ago for the express purpose of coordinating all of the different agencies that play a role in national security strategy. A search for a "war czar" is an admission by the Bush administration that the National Security Council has failed to do its job.
Gates put it more kindly when he said the "war czar" would do what "Steve Hadley would do if Steve Hadley had the time."
So why can't the National Security Council do its job? The answer, from a retired general who was asked to become the "war czar," is that "Rumsfeld destroyed the NSC."
Donald Rumsfeld became infamous during the first six years of the Bush administration for ignoring the NSC and working one-on-one with the President and the Vice President. Even Colin Powell, then the Secretary of State, has since complained that he was cut out of the process at times.
Rumsfeld made clear during his years as Defense Secretary that he regarded the "interagency process" -- getting all the agencies to participate in the formulation and execution of policy -- as worse than water torture. For him, the "interagency process" – read: National Security Council -- was the place where all good ideas went to die. Rumsfeld's gone now, the retired general said, but the habits the NSC learned during those first six years remain.
By my count, at least five retired generals have turned down the "war czar" job. Only one of them, retired Marine Jack Sheehan, has publicly said why.
"I don't think they've got a coherent strategy," Sheehan told me, adding "the real issue is does Cheney play in this deal?" In other words, will the "war czar" have to do daily battle with the Vice President, a battle in which the VP has all the clout?
No general, even one who is not a critic of the strategy, would want to be "war czar." Generals are used to giving orders and having them followed or else. The "war czar" would be, to use Gates' terms, "a coordinator and a facilitator," which in bureaucratic terms means he would be responsible for making all agencies pull together but would have no authority to make it happen.
He would be, in other words, a four-star nagger.
It's hard to see how that would make any real difference in the war.
posted on April 12, 2007 10:52:08 AM
Actually it's a pretty smart move. Think about it. The war probably will not be over by the time Bush is out of office. There will need to be someone in place that can run the military during the transisional period between Presidents.
Too bad Demomorons like rustydumbo and proofheisanidiot can't figure that out on their own.
.
.
.
If it's called common sense, why do so few Demomorons have it?
posted on April 12, 2007 12:10:57 PM
That's a good reason, Stonecold.
This was isn't going to be over for years and years and years. Whether MOST of our troops are withdrawn or not...I don't see this being any different than we did in Germany, Japan, or the other nations we 'left' for the most part. But there still remained US troops. They're still there, matter of fact.
So....I agree. Don't get to do that with many here. It's a nice change....thanks.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 12, 2007 12:33:56 PM
from Fox News, today, in part:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that many federal agencies enlisted to help in the revised strategy on Iraq, first announced by President Bush in January, are failing to fully contribute.
Gates said he is "sympathetic" to remarks that the defense and state departments "are about the only parts of the government that are at war."
Describing the role of an overseer as a "czar" is "kind of silly," Gates said, but the position is one that's needed.
"This kind of position is intended to ensure that where other parts of the government can play a contributing role, that, in fact, they understand what the president's priorities are and make sure that the commanders in the field, the ambassador in the field gets what he needs," Gates said.
"This czar term is, I think, kind of silly.
The person is better described as a coordinator and a facilitator, somebody -- this is what is (National Security Adviser) Steve Hadley would do if Steve Hadley had the time," he said.
Gates was speaking after the White House confirmed that it is struggling to find a candidate to fill the job of overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to better coordinate military operations there.
The White House wants someone to focus on conducting strategic reviews for the wars, said Gordon Johndroe, a National Security Council spokesman.
"The White House is looking into creating a higher profile position that would have the single, full time focus on implementing and executing the recently completed strategic reviews for both Iraq and Afghanistan," Johndroe told FOX News.
"This position would report directly to the president as well as Steve Hadley and have representatives in the offices of the secretaries of state and defense in order to speed up and make more efficient the implementation of these strategies."
First reported by The Washington Post, the administration is seeking a high-powered candidate to head up a new office, but so far, three retired four-star generals have turned down the offer.
Retired Marine Gen. Jack Sheehan didn't want the job, he said, because he doesn't think he would be able to bypass Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials who Sheehan suspects aren't interested in developing a plan to get out of Iraq.
Army Gen. Jack Keane and Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston also declined the offer.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino refused to say whether anyone had turned down the job.
"I will stress to you that there have been no decisions about any possible change in structure," Perino said. "There has been no list of candidates that's been narrowed down. It's an idea that is one very much in the making, so I don't have any more specifics for you that I can give to you on that."
================
Now I see why sheehan wouldn't want the job.
HE wants us to get OUT of Iraq....and that certainly isn't what the CIC wants to do.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 12, 2007 12:35:16 PM
Have a little time on my hands today. Sorry for the length of this post.
Chicago Tribune
Gen'l: Withdraw from Iraqi Civil War
Posted by Mark Silva at 1:35 pm CDT
A year ago, retired Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who had commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq, was among the retired generals calling for the retirement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Today, as the White House seeks a replacement for a National Security Council adviser who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and extends the service of soldiers deployed to Iraq, Batiste again questions the leadership of a flailing military campaign in Iraq which he calls an "ill-conceived mission'' that has become a fruitless deployment mired in an Iraqi Civil War – "with a capital C and a capital W.''
The Army's extended deployments of soldiers to 15 months and difficulty in finding new leadership "should cause all Americans to stand up and take notice,'' Batiste said. "The current surge is insufficient, more of the same, and the results are predictable… The current Army and Marines are at a breaking point, with little to show for it.''
U.S. forces should re-deploy and prepare for "the next phase of a protracted challenge,'' he said, suggesting that "the current strategy in Iraq is catapulting the Middle East into further chaos…We need to get on this, take it seriously, and understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are but the first chapters in a long book.
"We still are playing a game of whack-a-mole,'' Batiste said. "It's the Myth of Sisyphus playing out over and over again… This country isn’t mobilized. We don’t have our heart into this… and the strategy is no more unified today than it was in March of 2003… It's time for this great country to accept the cold hard facts that we are right in the middle of an Iraqi civil war, and it is an absolute mess.''
Calling the government of Iraq "fractured,'' Batiste maintains the U.S. military alone cannot establish democracy in Iraq and that sectarian strife will only continue in the absence of the rule of law.
"Yes, I favor a draw-down,'' one of the administration's former "generals on the ground'' said about congressional calls for a withdrawal of forces from Iraq… "We've got to pace ourselves and stop the Bush administration from driving us to a global culminating point.
"Here is the bottom line,'' he said. "Americans must come to grips with the fact that our military alone cannot establish a democracy…We cannot sustain the current operational tempo without seriously damaging the Army and Marine Corps… our troops have been asked to carry the burden of an ill-conceived mission.
"What we see in Iraq is more of the same,'' Batiste said in a conference call with reporters arranged by the National Security Network, a research institute that includes former members of the Clinton administration now critical of the Bush administration, and VoteVets.org, an organization of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans critical of the war in Iraq -- Batiste is a board member of VoteVets.
"If I were a soldier on the ground today in Iraq, I'd feel much better about my extended 15-month tour of duty if I knew my nation was mobilized behind the effort,'' the retired general said, calling the White House's search for a new war coordinator misguided. "Standing up a war czar is just throwing up another layer of bureaucracy,'' he said. "Excuse me, we have a chain of command.
"What we have is a failure in leadership,'' Batiste said today, as he had one year ago.
The president had this to say today about the latest signal that the security which U.S. and Iraqi forces are seeking in Baghdad remains an elusive goal, the suicide-bombing inside the Iraqi Parliament building: "It reminds us… that there is an enemy willing to bomb innocent people in a symbol of democracy.
"There is a type of person that would walk in that building and kill innocent life -- and that is the same type of person that is willing to come and kill innocent Americans,'' Bush said.
"It is in our interest to help this young democracy be in a position so it can sustain itself and govern itself and defend itself against these extremists and radicals,'' the president said in an appearance inside the White House. "My message to the Iraqi government is we stand with you as you take the steps necessary to not only reconcile politically, but also put a security force in place that is able to deal with these kinds of people.''
Batiste, who led the Army's First Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, also was among the first retired generals to call for Rumsfeld's resignation a year ago. He had joined retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and retired Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold in calling for a replacement that did not occur until after President Bush's party lost control of Congress in November.
"Whether we agree or not with the war in Iraq, we are where we are and we must succeed in this endeavor,'' Batiste said in an interview with CNN on April 13 of last year. "Failure is, frankly, not an option.
"Success to me is setting the Iraqi people up for self-reliance with their form of representative government that takes into account tribal, ethnic and religious differences that have always defined Iraqi society,'' he said then. "Iraqis, frankly, in my experience, do not understand democracy.
"When my family and I returned from Germany after three years with the [Army's First Infantry Division], we were struck by the fact that there's a lack of sacrifice and commitment on the part of the American people -- the exception [is] those families with soldiers committed into this fight,'' he said. "And certainly, too many of these families truly understand the meaning of sacrifice. Most Americans only confront this issue by deciding what color of magnet on the back end of their SUV.
"Finally,'' Batiste said last year, "I believe we need a fresh part in the Pentagon. We need a leader who understands teamwork, a leader who knows how to build teams, a leader that does it without intimidation… I think we need senior military leaders who understand the principles of war and apply them ruthlessly, and when the time comes, they need to call it like it is… new leadership in the Pentagon, a fresh start.''
posted on April 12, 2007 01:10:14 PM
Gen. Sheehan is not the only general who thinks this way. See my previous post from a General who commanded the First Infantry Division in Iraq. There are several more generals who feel the same way. They are military experts. Perhaps listening to them for a change may help.
posted on April 12, 2007 01:22:08 PM
Linda, You are implying that General Sheehan is some anti-war, anti-American because he disagrees with Bush. He is a military man with an illustrious career. Bush's military experience is.......
United States Marine Corps (Ret.)
General
John J. Sheehan
General John J. Sheehan was born on August 23, 1940, in Somerville, Mass., and graduated with a B.A. degree in English from Boston College in June 1962. After graduation, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps. He holds an M.S. degree from Georgetown University in Government.
He has served in various command positions ranging from company commander to brigade commander in both the Atlantic and Pacific theater of operations. General Sheehan's combat tours include duty in Vietnam and Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
His staff positions include duties as regimental, division, and service headquarters staff officer as well as joint duty with the U.S. Army, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the U.S. Atlantic Command.
Prior to assuming his current duties as Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command on 31 October 1994, General Sheehan served as Director for Operations, J-3, Joint Staff, Washington, D.C.
His professional education includes the Amphibious Warfare School, Naval Command and Staff College, and National War College.
His decorations and medals include: the Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Silver Star Medal; Defense Superior Service Medal; Bronze Star Medal with Combat "V" and gold star in lieu of a second award; Purple Heart with gold star; the Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Meritorious Service Medal; Army Commendation Medal; Navy Achievement Medal; Combat Action Ribbon; Presidential Unit Citation; Navy Unit Commendation; National Defense Service Medal with one bronze star; Vietnam Service Medal; Southwest Asia Service Medal with two bronze stars; Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with silver star; and the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor (First Class). He has also been awarded the French National Order of Merit; the Netherlands Medal of Merit in Gold; the Portuguese Great Cross of Merit; the Hungarian Order of Merit and the Great Cross of hte Royal Norwegian Order of Merit."
General Sheehan has retired since this biography was written.
posted on April 12, 2007 01:40:14 PM
Yup, the neocons are so DELIGHTED that the war will go on and on maiming and killing people who aren't THEM....
However, America was told that this war would be a three week cake walk....another of the multitude of blatant lies told by this administration.....I guess it's an improvement of some sort that the neocon repugs admit it....
posted on April 12, 2007 07:07:05 PMIf Bush is Commander in Chief, why does he need a War Czar to take over? Did he dig himself a hole he cannot get out of?
Exactly. Bush is the Cheerleader in Chief. He is the decider. He got us into this mess, let him get us out.
The War Czar is another scapegoat for him.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
[ edited by logansdad on Apr 15, 2007 09:10 AM ]
posted on April 12, 2007 08:33:54 PM
Czar is another word for king....I thought we already had the War King....the kind that hides in a bottle when there's a danger HE might face combat...
posted on April 15, 2007 09:10:18 AM
By Jack Jacobs
Military analyst
MSNBC
Updated: 10:43 p.m. CT April 12, 2007
Jack Jacobs
Military analyst
Earlier this week, there was a vague, unsubstantiated report that the White House has been exploring the notion of creating a senior position to oversee the conduct of the conflicts in Southwest Asia. Ostensibly, this slot would be filled by a retired military officer, and, not surprisingly, the media dubbed him the “War Czar.”
This astounding report has since been confirmed, and the sheer stupidity of it is staggering.
Reportedly, three retired generals -- Joe Ralston (Air Force), Jack Keane, (Army) and Jack Sheehan (Marines) -- were all approached about the job, and each turned it down. Sheehan has confirmed the story, with the reaction, “they (the White House) don’t know where they’re going.”
I concur.
For one thing, unless he’s decided he can’t do the job, we already have a War Czar, and his name is Robert Gates, who is the Secretary of Defense.
Until the period just after the Second World War, we had a Secretary of War, and in 1947, the Congress passed, and President Truman signed, the Defense Reorganization Act. Among other things, this created today’s Defense Department. The law euphemistically changed “War” to “Defense,” but the wartime functions of the Secretary didn’t change much.
Furthermore, to assist the Secretary, the law created a panel of senior military leaders to advise both him and the president. These people also serve as the uniformed heads of their services, and this panel is called the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As a group they are responsible for planning and executing combat operations. They report to the War Czar, Robert Gates.
The idea that we need someone on the White House staff to direct combat operations has to be the brainchild of a civil servant who has no understanding of the law and no grasp of the use of the military instrument of power.
Among other things, it violates one of the cardinal principles of war, that of unity of command. In combat, it is impossible to serve two bosses without putting both the mission and the troops in great peril. Think a bit about how the proposed White House War Czar is supposed to perform his duties. The implication is that he will have a command line to the field, bypassing Gates. Is Admiral Fallon, the commander of all troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, supposed to take orders from Gates or from the White House? Well, it sounds like he’ll have to obey both. Won’t work, folks.
Either the White House appointee is in charge or Gates is in charge. They can’t both be the boss.
Perhaps the most astonishing thing about all this is that, evidently, Secretary Gates thinks it’s a good idea, and he said as much in response to a question at a press conference a few days ago.
Now, Robert Gates is not an idiot, as far as we know. He’s an educated man, he ran the CIA and he speaks in complete sentences. But if he believes that it’s productive to have yet another layer of bureaucracy, another layer of decision-making, another detached boss issuing instructions to the people who are trying to fight our enemies, then he has no confidence in his own ability to be the Secretary of Defense of the United States. If he thinks ill-conceived schemes like this are good ideas, then he is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If the White House ultimately concludes that it can’t live another minute without a War Czar, and if it can actually convince the Congress that it’s a good idea, it will still have to find some sucker whose ego is bigger than his intellect to take the job. Well, any General Officer who’s any good won’t take the job, and any General Officer who’ll take the job won’t be any good.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 15, 2007 11:23:14 AM
No, CC, I'm not.
What I have pointed out before is there are hundreds of OPINIONS on what should be done.
AND that the final decision rests AS ALWAYS under our constitution, with our CIC.
There are also commanders, generals, etc. who don't agree with your gen. sheehan. I'm sure you know that.
Because you happen to agree with him....doesn't give his OPINION any more weight that those military leaders who don't agree with him.
It comes as no surprise to me that those of you who support admitting DEFEAT....rather than looking for others ways to obtain VICTORY...would agree with his position.
The fact still remains that HE is complaining about everything being done so wrong....but he doesn't have the courage to NOW step up to the plate and do ANYTHING other than bash what is being done.
You [collectively] have a complaint? Fine...OFFER A SOLUTION that doesn't put America at risk....millions of Iraqi's lives at risk like would get MUCH WORSE should we leave them high and dry.
That's what I'm saying about your gen. sheehan.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on April 15, 2007 11:27:44 AM
I also want to point out...
is that I and millions of others understand that our anti-war press, MSM, SEEK OUT those whose opinions match theirs.
They areN'T looking for the opinions of the 'other side'. They are VERY, very biased as they were during the VN war. And their agenda is to turn American's off of seeing this mission to completion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Apr 15, 2007 11:31 AM ]
Are YOU a Bunghole?