3 Generals Spurn the Position of War "Czar"

[BScully]

As someone who works on interagency issues daily and is trying to get my organization to play a larger role in supporting U.S. National Security, I have to agree with Jimbo. I also agree that the NSC should play a larger role in making things happen. From my perspective, I've seen several factors that have prevented Departments and agencies from getting more involved.

First, and most importantly, the resources just are not there. You can task all you want, but if there is no money and no staff, nothing is going to get done. This leads to my second observation, most Departments and Agencies do not believe they have a role in National Security issues...they are domestic agencies and therefore do not fund national security activities. Third, as with most interagency activities, parochialism runs rampant and Department and Agency agendas take priority.

Personally, I think a War "Czar" would be very useful in pulling the interagency together. While I wouldn't call the position a War "Czar," somebody who has a direct line to the President and his full support, can move resources, can ride Cabinet officials without fear of being fired, would be a tremendous benefit. Until a more effective national security system is put in place, interagency cooperation is only going to be effective if a strong personality/leader with direct access to the President is driving the train.

Could the National Security Advisor play this role? Sure. But if the National Security Advisor was 100% focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, which they'd have to be to be successful, what will the impact be on the rest of U.S. policy?

Take care,
Brian

[Old Eagle]

As many of you know, the catch phrase for interagency coordination is a "Goldwater-Nichols" for the IA. If the administration can't reform itself, it needs to be reformed from the outside. I don't believe in catch phrases, and I don't believe that there will be reform.

I think that one of the points that we tend to overlook is that the Founding Fathers created an inefficient government structure (and an inefficient military) in order to preserve the greater concept of democracy. It would be impossible for any of the major subordinate departments to amass the power necessary to overwhelm the rest of the government. The billpayer for this attitude is the fumble bumble in the IA. Yes, it costs money. Yes, unfortunately, it costs lives. It occassionally leads to failure. Price of doing business. Sorry.