PDA

View Full Version : dubya's lost war: 3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'



boutons_
04-11-2007, 12:58 PM
3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'

Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan

By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; A01


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.

"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.

The White House has not publicly disclosed its interest in creating the position, hoping to find someone President Bush can anoint and announce for the post all at once. Officials said they are still considering options for how to reorganize the White House's management of the two conflicts. If they cannot find a person suited for the sort of specially empowered office they envision, they said, they may have to retain the current structure.

The administration's interest in the idea stems from long-standing concern over the coordination of civilian and military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan by different parts of the U.S. government. The Defense and State departments have long struggled over their roles and responsibilities in Iraq, with the White House often forced to referee.

The highest-ranking White House official responsible exclusively for the wars is deputy national security adviser Meghan O'Sullivan, who reports to national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and does not have power to issue orders to agencies. O'Sullivan plans to step down soon, giving the White House the opportunity to rethink how it organizes the war effort.

Unlike O'Sullivan, the new czar would report directly to Bush and to Hadley and would have the title of assistant to the president, just as Hadley and the other highest-ranking White House officials have, the sources said. The new czar would also have "tasking authority," or the power to issue directions, over other agencies, they said.

To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Besides Sheehan, sources said, the White House or intermediaries have sounded out retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who also said they are not interested. Ralston declined to comment; Keane confirmed he declined the offer, adding: "It was discussed weeks ago."

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to help salvage a disastrous war. "Who's sitting on the bench?" he asked. "Who is there to turn to? And who would want to take the job?"

All three generals who declined the job have been to varying degrees administration insiders. Keane, a former Army vice chief of staff, was one of the primary proponents of sending more troops to Iraq and presented Bush with his plan for a major force increase during an Oval Office meeting in December. The president adopted the concept in January, although he did not dispatch as many troops as Keane proposed.

Ralston, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was named by Rice last August to serve as her special envoy for countering the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group designated a terrorist organization by the United States.

Sheehan, a 35-year Marine, served on the Defense Policy Board advising the Pentagon early in the Bush administration and at one point was reportedly considered by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He now works as an executive at Bechtel Corp. developing oil projects in the Middle East.

In an interview yesterday, Sheehan said that Hadley contacted him and they discussed the job for two weeks but that he was dubious from the start. "I've never agreed on the basis of the war, and I'm still skeptical," Sheehan said. "Not only did we not plan properly for the war, we grossly underestimated the effect of sanctions and Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people."

In the course of the discussions, Sheehan said, he called around to get a better feel for the administration landscape.

"There's the residue of the Cheney view -- 'We're going to win, al-Qaeda's there' -- that justifies anything we did," he said. "And then there's the pragmatist view -- how the hell do we get out of Dodge and survive? Unfortunately, the people with the former view are still in the positions of most influence." Sheehan said he wrote a note March 27 declining interest.

Gordon Johndroe, a National Security Council spokesman, would not discuss contacts with candidates but confirmed that officials are considering a newly empowered czar.

"The White House is looking at a number of options on how to structure the Iraq and Afghanistan office in light of Meghan O'Sullivan's departure and the completion of both the Iraq and Afghanistan strategic reviews," he said. He added that "No decisions have been made" and "a list of candidates has not been narrowed down."

The idea of someone overseeing the wars has been promoted to the White House by several outside advisers. "It would be definitely a good idea," said Frederick W. Kagan, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "Hope they do it, and hope they do it soon. And I hope they pick the right guy. It's a real problem that we don't have a single individual back here who is really capable of coordinating the effort."

Other variations are under consideration. House Democrats have put a provision in their version of a war spending bill that would designate a coordinator to oversee all assistance to Iraq. That person, who would report directly to the president, would require Senate confirmation; the White House said it opposes the proposal because Rice already has an aid coordinator.

Some administration critics said the ideas miss the point. "An individual can't fix a failed policy," said Carlos Pascual, former State Department coordinator of Iraq reconstruction, who is now a vice president at the Brookings Institution. "So the key thing is to figure out where the policy is wrong."

=================

dubya said he always listened to his Generals, but when Generals objected to dubya's Bagdad surge (aka, a little bit more of the same shit that hasn't worked for 4 years), he fired them.

The surge isn't over (give it 2 more months max, according to Gen. "surge" Petraeus), but there's damn little indication it's working in Bagdad, and certainly not "turning the tide" in Iraq.

So now the "Harvard MBA president" is trying to create another level of management (MBA's love "management", something that dubya has never succeeded at any better than his mastery of English language), the Iraq/Afghanistan wars czar, to fix his fucking murderous disaster.
dubya an dickhead have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqis that they held briefly after the invasion.

dubya has lost Iraq. Figure out a way to get out as quickly as possible, rather than let dickhead re-arrange the deckchairs.

xrayzebra
04-11-2007, 01:01 PM
Why would anyone want to be part of Government with the
dimm-o-craps challenging every aspect of their life. Like they
are all pure as driven snow.

I damn sure wouldn't put myself thru the process unless I loved
pain. Which I am not into.

clambake
04-11-2007, 02:32 PM
So Ray, General Sheehan is a democrat? Maybe you should take a closer look at the article. Bush is ready to dump his mess into someone else's lap. You'd better be able to run pretty fast if you intend to keep covering W's ass.

ChumpDumper
04-11-2007, 02:41 PM
Maybe if they had made Jay Garner a czar in Iraq in the first place, half of the shit that undermined the occupation wouldn't have happened. Good job, Bushy. :tu

xrayzebra
04-11-2007, 04:41 PM
Maybe if you folks would trash the enemy instead of Bush and
really support the troops the terrorist wouldn't be trying to pull
a VN.

ChumpDumper
04-11-2007, 05:11 PM
If Bush and Rumsfeld, et.al., had learned the lessons of counterinsurgency from Vietnam, the insurgents never would have had the opportunity to "pull" a Vietnam for the past four years.

exstatic
04-11-2007, 06:34 PM
Yeah, because that Drug Czar position is working out so well. No more drugs in this country, are there?

Shouldn't the person managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be Bush?

sabar
04-12-2007, 02:33 AM
Of course no military leader wants the job, it takes them from a militarisic position and into one aligned with the Bush admin, which has had abysmal approval ratings and endless scandal and lies. The military has always been historically seperate from the political sphere and I'm sure any general wants to keep it that way.

Why go into a position where if your boss and his admin goes down in flames, you do too?

exstatic
04-12-2007, 07:55 AM
Oh, I imagine they'll find someone retired and of flag rank to take the position, sabar. When you get those four stars, you ARE a politician.

George Gervin's Afro
04-12-2007, 08:11 AM
I assumed our 'wartime ' pres was keeping an eye on things.

xrayzebra
04-12-2007, 08:49 AM
Once again most the posters prove my point. Bush is the bad
guy and the terrorist are the good guys.

I know you all support the troops you said so. Don't make it
so though. Guess Bush caused all the trouble in Algiers too.
And the Philippines. Terrorist are our friends if we would just
talk to them. Nacy Pelosi and Harry Reid say so, so it must
be so. You sorry individuals are sickening.

ChumpDumper
04-12-2007, 10:03 AM
Terrorists are the bad guys.

Bush is a guy with horrible judgment, a messiah complex and a huge capacity for denial.

clambake
04-12-2007, 10:13 AM
It would have been nice to go after terrorist instead of some idealogical agenda to the abyss.

nkdlunch
04-12-2007, 10:26 AM
they just want someone to point their finger at and say "he's failing" let's replace him. and so on. and take attention off the sorry ass govmt.

xrayzebra
04-12-2007, 10:52 AM
It would have been nice to go after terrorist instead of some idealogical agenda to the abyss.


So because, in your judgement, terrorist didn't exist in
Iraq when we first invaded we should just get out now.
Even though they are now in Iraq, and in my judgement,
were there in the beginning.

Getting out now just doesn't make sense, we are fighting
terrorist now in Iraq. And many other places not in the
MSM.

clambake
04-12-2007, 11:47 AM
You under-estimate our ability to manufacture terrorist just by storming in where we don't belong. That's right ray, there were no terrorist in Iraq until after we arrived. That's when we tooled up the assembly line and started cranking them out. You don't waste much time considering the consequences of our actions. You must be pretty good with that banjo by now.

xrayzebra
04-12-2007, 11:51 AM
Yeah, I just an old fashion guy. You know support your country,
serve you country and show a little of the old American backbone.

So you join the group that says we just give them an
unconditional surrender and man the fort at home.

And yeah, they were there before we there. You poor stupid
individual. Your ignorance is only exceeded by your lack of
intellect.

clambake
04-12-2007, 11:55 AM
Hey ray, the good thing about alzheimers is you can hide your own easter eggs.

Trainwreck2100
04-12-2007, 11:56 AM
New Sec of Defense is smart, he's looking for a goat.

xrayzebra
04-12-2007, 12:01 PM
Hey ray, the good thing about alzheimers is you can hide your own easter eggs.

Yep and I found the Easter Rabbit and his name is clambake.
:hat

clambake
04-12-2007, 12:17 PM
What's that Ray? I couldn't hear you over the blast at the Iraqi Parliment.

xrayzebra
04-12-2007, 12:50 PM
What's that Ray? I couldn't hear you over the blast at the Iraqi Parliment.

Your point being?

Us surrendering unconditionally will solve
the problem.

Clam, would you just use a little
common sense once in awhile. Just a
little.

clambake
04-12-2007, 01:09 PM
The point is Iraqis have their own plans, Ray, and they don't include our puppet govt.

Remind you of anything?

xrayzebra
04-12-2007, 01:13 PM
The point is Iraqis have their own plans, Ray, and they don't include our puppet govt.

Remind you of anything?

Yes, it does, your lack of common sense.
I don't remember anyone, even the
liberal media, saying we rigged the
election in Iraq.

Guess you know much more than the
rest of us about the Iraq people.

clambake
04-12-2007, 01:28 PM
I just know the ones with influence and real power want us out. You know, the ones that will end up on top? You know, the ones that will have the ultimate, final say? You know, the ones we'll never be able to conquer?

They're the same ones the Generals know. You know, the Generals that said no to Bush? The same Generals that say Bush hasn't a fucking clue about what he's doing.

You should fly that flag of yours instead of using for a blindfold.

boutons_
04-12-2007, 06:54 PM
and it's not only General's who think dubya'a war and dubya's Army sucks.

=================

West Point Grads Exit Service at High Rate

By Bryan Bender
The Boston Globe

Wednesday 11 April 2007

War's redeployments thought a major factor.

Washington - Recent graduates of the US Military Academy at West Point are choosing to leave active duty at the highest rate in more than three decades, a sign to many military specialists that repeated tours in Iraq are prematurely driving out some of the Army's top young officers.

According to statistics compiled by West Point, of the 903 Army officers commissioned upon graduation in 2001, nearly 46 percent left the service last year - 35 percent at the conclusion of their five years of required service, and another 11 percent over the next six months. And more than 54 percent of the 935 graduates in the class of 2000 had left active duty by this January, the statistics show.

The figures mark the lowest retention rate of graduates after the completion of their mandatory duty since at least 1977, with the exception of members of three classes in the late 1980s who were encouraged to leave as the military downsized following the end of the Cold War.

In most years during the last three decades, the period for which West Point released statistics, the numbers of graduates opting out at the five-year mark were between 10 percent and 30 percent, according to the data.

The rising exodus is blamed on a number of factors, including the economic lure of the private sector. But interviews with former West Point superintendents, graduates, and retired officers pointed to another reason: the wear and tear on officers and their families from multiple deployments.

"Iraq is exerting very strong influence on the career intentions of junior officers," said retired Lieutenant General Daniel Christman, a former superintendent of West Point, who recently outlined the war's toll on young officers in a speech to West Point alumni in North Carolina.

The nation's premier military academy has started offering graduates new incentives to keep them from leaving active duty at their first opportunity.

For example, West Point now guarantees its graduates the home bases of their choice, as well as a chance to go to graduate school, in exchange for a commitment to serve at least three years beyond their five-year commitment.

Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat and a member of the West Point class of 1971, said a more young officers are shying away from multiple tours in Iraq.

Much of the drop in retention is the result of "the operational tempo," he said, referring to the high pace of overseas deployments since 2001.

The military academy at West Point, N.Y., established in 1802, has provided top Army officers for all the nation's wars. Along with a four-year degree and military training estimated to be worth millions of dollars per cadet, graduates receive the rank of lieutenant in the Army.

West Pointers have been among the nation's most storied battlefield commanders, including Union commander Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate commander Robert E. Lee in the Civil War; World War II and Korean War hero General Douglas MacArthur; General Creighton Abrams, the top field commander in Vietnam and namesake of the Army's top battle tank, and Benjamin O'Davis, the nation's first black general.

In more recent years, West Point graduates have carried a heavy load in America's wars. One example is the class of 1966, which graduated at the height of the Vietnam War and saw many of its graduates serve as platoon commanders in Southeast Asia.

By the early 1970s, "a full third of the class was out or dead," retired Colonel Daniel M. Smith , a member of the class of 1966, said in an interview.

West Point grads have continued to stand out. The US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus , graduated in 1974.

But the Iraq War itself, with its repeated tours of duty and often-shifting military objectives, appears to have dissuaded more graduates than in recent history from continuing their military careers - even as the Army has stressed that West Point training has become more important in an era of high-tech warfare.

West Point spokesman Francis J. DeMaro said he could not explain why more young officers were opting to leave the Army, and declined to comment further.

But the sharpest increases in those leaving the military were among those whose commitments expired in 2005 and 2006, as many units were going back to Iraq and Afghanistan for their second and third tours. In each of those years, covering the classes of 2000 and 2001, about 35 percent got out at their earliest opportunity.

The rate was significantly more than the classes from 1977 to 1986, which averaged 18 percent. For those who graduated between 1990 and 1999, 29 percent left after their five-year commitment.

The retention rates of the classes of 1987, 1988, and 1989 dipped the lowest of all, but that is widely attributed to the military's downsizing at the end of the Cold War.

"We were shrinking the officer corps in the early and mid-1990s," said retired General Wesley K. Clark, another member of West Point's class of 1966. "Early release was one step. We screened officers and encouraged them to get out."

Reed likened the departure of recently minted West Point graduates to the situation during the waning days of the Vietnam era, when "at the five-year mark you were losing a lot of officers because of the wear and tear."

Indeed, the percentages of recent graduates wanting to leave active duty may even be higher. The numbers do not reflect those who may have been forced to stay longer than five years under the wartime authority known as "stop-loss," in which the president can order troops with critical skills to remain on active duty.

The numbers also do not show how many of those who have left may have joined the Reserves or National Guard, DeMaro said. A total of four graduates from 2000 and 2001 have died on missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Clark said the departure from the ranks of West Point graduates cannot be overstated.

"There is a lot of development that goes into" molding these unique military leaders, he said in an interview. "There is no way to get them back."

=================

So dubya's bogus Iraq war fucks up the officer corps, like everything else dubya has touched since being in office. dubya, the reverse Midas touch, turning everyting to shit instead of gold.

exstatic
04-12-2007, 07:11 PM
Hollow force...again.

BIG IRISH
04-12-2007, 09:16 PM
3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'

Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan

By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; A01


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,

I'm sorry, but isn't that the President's job as Commander in Chief? :p:

mrsmaalox
04-12-2007, 11:29 PM
Yeah, because that Drug Czar position is working out so well. No more drugs in this country, are there?

Shouldn't the person managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be Bush?
And what exactly does the Sec of Defense do? And the Joint Chiefs?

exstatic
04-12-2007, 11:48 PM
And what exactly does the Sec of Defense do? And the Joint Chiefs?
What the Prez tells them to do. What the Prez tells them to.

ChumpDumper
04-12-2007, 11:49 PM
Or the CENTCOM commander for that matter -- oh wait, he's an Admiral -- the perfect choice to lead wars in one completely and one practically landlocked countries.

:tu