Updated NYTIMES article with more info on Lt Gen Lute.
How in God's name is a "war czar" going to make operations in Iraq successful?
Updated NYTIMES article with more info on Lt Gen Lute.
Lute could potentially make a ton of difference. Bscully and I have spoken written on this, and we could enumerate in painful detail about how DC doesn't work like it should for this. I think this is a good step forward.
16 May Washington Post - Bush Taps Skeptic of Buildup as 'War Czar' by Peter Baker and Robin Wright
President Bush tapped Army Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute yesterday to serve as a new White House "war czar" overseeing the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, choosing a low-key soldier who privately expressed skepticism about sending more troops to Iraq during last winter's strategy review.
In the newly created position, Lute will coordinate often disjointed military and civilian operations and manage the Washington side of the same troop increase he resisted before Bush announced the plan in January. Bush hopes an empowered aide working in the White House and answering directly to him will be able to cut through bureaucracy that has hindered efforts in Iraq...
How does creating another layer of bureaucracy add to our efforts?
I've read through this thread and seen a need to improve interagency efforts towards Iraq and the WoT in general. Hate to say this, but the bureaucracies of Washington DC are not the issue here. Improving interagency integration isn't going to do much when the Iraqi people don't have jobs, electricity, security or much of anything to be frank.
Now - if you told me this was being done to improve things for the future, I might buy off on that theory, but all of this is doing nothing in the short terms is building more bureaucracy and layers of "command" when we are fighting a most decentralized war.
Read back through the posts on this thread, and you will see your question has been answered already.
It appears he can't do much policy-wise or with the budget(s) but I suppose he can by symbolically put against the wall like Czar Nicholas was if all doesn't go well....He will need a good game face when dealing with Pelosi and Reid
What the position is supposedly going to do is hold the different departments and agencies accountable for what they have "signed up" to do. A bunch of agencies have said things at the secretary level, and then they don't follow through at the bureaucratic level. Based on where I currently sit, a bunch of these agencies have not adequately addressed their capacity issues at the NSC/president level (a kind of emporer has no clothes thing). The Czar is supposed to follow up with access to the President. when you talk budgeting and such, some of these agencies and departments need somebody from the outside to tell them that they need to expand to meet mission requirements. If you think that the current structures are doing that, then you are mistaken.
Today is a great day to be someone other than Doug Lute.
Oh man I started laughing so hard my NCO looked at me like I was mental--then again that's me and I often get those looks. Just ask Stan.
But Eagle you are correct and the spin in the media game is already on with articles on how is more acceptable to department heads because he has less rank.
Tom
Last edited by Tom Odom; 05-17-2007 at 04:11 PM.
For what it is worth. He is a Cav guy from way back--may be a good fit with the current leadership in country given that another cav unit (the 3rd ACR) and 101 ABN (on the Army side) seem to have really figured out how to fix the problems in their AOs.
He and Petraeus also overlapped at USMA in the Social Sciences Department.
I think you are dead on Tom. When Rumsfeld first took over, he had a one star working as his assistant. Even though the one-star kept protesting saying he was waaaaaay to junior to handle the higher ups, Rumsfeld kept him for months until he realized the one-star was right. For Lute to have better credibility with the serving four stars, he'll need to bump up a star. I think this was the primary reason the President was initially looking for a retired four-star, kind of a senior mentor, or graybeard, who has "been there, done that" and can relate to the four stars.
Like Old Eagle Said, I'm glad I'm not LTG Lute!
Last edited by Tom Odom; 05-17-2007 at 04:10 PM.
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
I think the main role of LTG Lute is going to be working with the civilian agencies...not the military. From my perch, what needs to happen is that the civilian agencies need to follow through on their promises of support to the military. Gen. Lute will need to be busting heads to make that happen. I don't think he'll be directing the military at all or really getting too heavily involved in military activities except to fully understand what the military needs from the civilian departments to win in Iraq.
Brian
17 May Washington Post - To 'War Czar,' Solution to Iraq Conflict Won't Be Purely Military by Peter Baker and Robin Wright.
In selecting Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute to manage the war in Iraq, President Bush has chosen a soldier who believes there is no purely military solution to the conflict and wants to forge a political accommodation among Iraqi factions that may fall short of full reconciliation but could lead to an exit strategy, according to friends and colleagues.
Lute's appointment shifts the balance within Bush's war council by adding a powerful voice who resisted sending more U.S. troops to Iraq and plans to pressure civilian agencies to take on a greater role. Lute promised Bush that he will do everything he can to make the buildup succeed despite his reservations, but he may be more open to arguments for a withdrawal should it fail, the colleagues said...
For such an unassuming guy, Lute sure seems to be drawing fire. Another good reason not to be him again today.
For the academics among you, I would point out that Tom Leney would have had a terrible time building a more complex sentence than that in his quote.
Bookmarks