Reply With Quote
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.
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 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 le 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, Sheehansaid 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 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 Ins ute. "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 Ins ution. "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 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 ing murderous disaster.
dubya an head 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 head re-arrange the deckchairs.
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.
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.
Maybe if they had made Jay Garner a czar in Iraq in the first place, half of the that undermined the occupation wouldn't have happened. Good job, Bushy.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I assumed our 'wartime ' pres was keeping an eye on things.
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.
Terrorists are the bad guys.
Bush is a guy with horrible judgment, a messiah complex and a huge capacity for denial.
It would have been nice to go after terrorist instead of some idealogical agenda to the abyss.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey ray, the good thing about alzheimers is you can hide your own easter eggs.
New Sec of Defense is smart, he's looking for a goat.
Yep and I found the Easter Rabbit and his name is clambake.
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.
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.
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 ing clue about what he's doing.
You should fly that flag of yours instead of using for a blindfold.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
