3 Generals Spurn the Position of War "Czar"

[Rob Thornton]

Originally posted by JC,

Because I finally saw Flags of Our Fathers on DVD, it gives me reason to offer up that though the nation was at war in WWII, the folks grew tired then as well, over time.

JC, makes you wonder if we should poll the average guy on what his suspense "might " be prior to taking policy to the next level. I once took part in a discussion about the letters between Jefferson and Madison where the former advocated the value of 1 man 1 vote and the I believe the latter took the position of why the "common" man might not be the best to put policy in the hands of, since he might have more pressing issues

Anybody read what Sen Kerry said yesterday - something to the effect of "the reason nobody wants the job is because the White House strategy has little chance of success" - paraphrased from the early bird - but fairly close. Another example of how politicians will twist reactions, etc to further their personal agendas.

[tequila]

That sounds like a pretty reasonable paraphrase of Gen Jack Sheehan's response.

"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.

[Dr Jack]

This morning it appears that there have now been at least 5 generals who have turned down the "War Czar" job:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

Retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston and retired Air Force Gen. John P. Jumper have said they are not interested, according to sources or the generals themselves, and CBS News said retired Marine Gen. Charles E. Wilhelm also demurred.

The article also gives some additional insight into the new job:

According to the proposal, the execution manager would develop "clearly assigned responsibility, deadlines, performance metrics (as appropriate) and a system of accountability to ensure progress" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and other key Cabinet officers would assign a "trusted agent" to work with the new White House official.

Hadley said the idea is to "fix problems in Washington that are in the way," not to rewrite the chain of command or take over operational decisions. The official would work through Cabinet secretaries to solve problems, but would have enough clout to ensure follow-through.

"My goal is to make the person really work for and be seen to work for the president, and be able to speak in his name," Hadley said. "I can do it, and I do do it, but I can't do it and North Korea and Iran and all the other things I've got to do." (He said he will jettison the title "execution manager" to avoid unintended double meaning.)

This job gets better and better...

[jcustis]

Better to find more qualified to staff the PRTs we so desperately need, me thinks.

This makes me think of a sig line I've seen on another board, where a Czech officer is quoted as saying, "I am an officer, where is my office?"

Interagency coordination is great, but what do we do when one of the agencies can't (or won't) shoulder its share of the burden? Are we any closer to staffing those critical DoS slots for the PRTs?

Is anyone more keen to head to the Green Zone now that they've seen the BGs bring the fight to us within a damn cafeteria?