Somebody explain to me the "war czar" thing.

[Direckshun]

Do your best to answer some queries:

What's the use of doing this?

What can a war czar do that the President can't?

Say we name one today, April 13th 2007. If the war still can't be turned around in the right direction, does the war czar take all the blame away from Bush from the 13th on?

Is this a positive or negative signal for the war in light of recent events?

Do you consider this a minor change or a seriously major change?

What are your thoughts on retired Marine General John Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who rejected the job, saying "the very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going"?

[Taco John]

My reaction is that any move that gets a smart person in charge of making important decisions is a welcome change.

[ClevelandBronco]

Do your best to answer some queries:

What's the use of doing this?

You got me.

What can a war czar do that the President can't?

Walk and chew gum.

Say we name one today, April 13th 2007. If the war still can't be turned around in the right direction, does the war czar take all the blame away from Bush from the 13th on?

Yes. Anti-Iraq-War types have one more day to bitch and moan. Make the most of it.

Is this a positive or negative signal for the war in light of recent events?

Positive. Bitching and moaning ceases. How can that be negative?

Do you consider this a minor change or a seriously major change?

Major.

What are your thoughts on retired Marine General John Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who rejected the job, saying "the very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going"?

Probably not the man for the job.

[Direckshun]

Yes. Anti-Iraq-War types have one more day to bitch and moan. Make the most of it.
You seem to be implying something I've been suspecting: that the war czar will do nothing but inhabit certain powers that the President has had from day one, and does so simply because if anything goes wrong, it's his fault, not Bush's.

But that can't be the story. It's too obvious. I'm holding out for more evidence, but if this is a primarily political move, it couldn't be dumber.

[ClevelandBronco]

You seem to be implying something I've been suspecting: that the war czar will do nothing but inhabit certain powers that the President has had from day one, and does so simply because if anything goes wrong, it's his fault, not Bush's.

But that can't be the story. It's too obvious. I'm holding out for more evidence, but if this is a primarily political move, it couldn't be dumber.

Well I don't "get it" yet. If I have anything meaningful to contribute down the road, I'll meet you here.

[Direckshun]

Well I don't "get it" yet. If I have anything meaningful to contribute down the road, I'll meet you here.
That's fair.

Not sure I get it either.

[Logical]

I did a parody thread on this War Czar that they were looking for a Secretary of Blame. But I believe that really is the goal, hire someone to take the blame for Iraq instead of Bush.

[patteeu]

Do your best to answer some queries:

What's the use of doing this?

It's aimed at coordinating our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq across agencies. For example, making sure that the DoD and the State Dept aren't working at cross purposes.

What can a war czar do that the President can't?

Focus exclusively on the two main shooting theaters of the GWoT.

Say we name one today, April 13th 2007. If the war still can't be turned around in the right direction, does the war czar take all the blame away from Bush from the 13th on?

Of course not. The President is still in charge. Most people won't even remember the name of the War Czar.

Is this a positive or negative signal for the war in light of recent events?

It's always positive to see changes being made in an effort to more effectively prosecute the GWoT. When we start seeing the kinds of changes that the democrat Congress want to impose, then were solidly in negative territory.

Do you consider this a minor change or a seriously major change?

Somewhere in between.

What are your thoughts on retired Marine General John Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who rejected the job, saying "the very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going"?

I'd say he's pessimistic about whatever it is that they told him during their discussions.

[the Talking Can]

the commander in chief is a ****ing idiot, so we have to have another one......

the war will be won with more beauracracy...besides, the mission was already accomplished, so this is just for show

[NewPhin]

What's the deal with us using "czar" as an official title? Was Drug Czar the first position that used the term? It just seems weird to use this slavic term for an official government position.

Maybe we'll have the Immigration Jefe soon.

[oldandslow]

What's the deal with us using "czar" as an official title? Was Drug Czar the first position that used the term? It just seems weird to use this slavic term for an official government position.

Maybe we'll have the Immigration Jefe soon.

I think they are quite appropriately named. Every Czar we introduce matches the greatness of the Russian Czar's during the modern era.

[patteeu]

I doubt that 'czar' is the administration's choice of what to call this guy. I'd imagine that it began, in this context, as media terminology.

[luv]

I did a parody thread on this War Czar that they were looking for a Secretary of Blame. But I believe that really is the goal, hire someone to take the blame for Iraq instead of Bush.
Agreed, but that's an uninformed opinion for me.

[patteeu]

Agreed, but that's an uninformed opinion for me.

Same for Logical. :p

[Extra Point]

Maybe we'll have the Immigration Jefe soon.

Use the French title "chef," and we can cook up more boondoggling.

[ClevelandBronco]

What's the deal with us using "czar" as an official title? Was Drug Czar the first position that used the term? It just seems weird to use this slavic term for an official government position.

Maybe we'll have the Immigration Jefe soon.

I think there was an Energy Czar before the Drug Czar.

Love the Immigration Jefe idea.

[BucEyedPea]

I doubt that 'czar' is the administration's choice of what to call this guy. I'd imagine that it began, in this context, as media terminology.
Or perhaps our WH Trotskyites are still fascinated with pre-revolutionary Russia. :p ;) LMAO


Just havin' fun with this pat.

[NewPhin]

Or perhaps our WH Trotskyites are still fascinated with pre-revolutionary Russia. :p ;) LMAO


Just havin' fun with this pat.

I hate to tell you this, but you're getting predictable. Shortly after I mentioned the czar thing, I knew you'd be in to talk about the Neocons their ties to communism. Maybe you're not predictable, and I'm just a genious.

[BucEyedPea]

I couldn't resist a joke!
I read being predictable is a sign of sanity.
Seems many here are predictable.

[beer bacon]

What's the deal with us using "czar" as an official title? Was Drug Czar the first position that used the term? It just seems weird to use this slavic term for an official government position.

Maybe we'll have the Immigration Jefe soon.

Drug Lord didn't test too well.

[DanT]

Here's an excerpt from a WLS (890-AM, Chicago) radio interview of Vice-President Cheney by Don and Roma Wade that happened this morning.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070413-3.html

Q What can you tell us about the war czar position? We understand the White House is thinking about establishing a war czar. Is there anyone whose name we should recognize being considered?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, what it is, it's really a coordination role. The basic chain of command is going to continue to run, obviously, from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and down to our commanders in the field. But there are a lot of activities with respect to what we're doing over there that require coordination between various agencies -- State and Defense and a lot of our domestic agencies that have roles over there in trying to help establish, for example, a good judicial system for the Iraqis. And pulling all of that together we think requires somebody here in Washington who would report directly to the President, and then have the authority to make certain everybody is delivering what they promised to deliver on time, and in effect, sort of ride roughshod, if necessary, over the bureaucracy to make sure we get the job done.

And that's the kind of post that was being talked about here. We are actively looking for someone who can undertake that assignment, and I'm convinced we'll have somebody here shortly.

[BucEyedPea]

Interesting DanT...but Czar implies a lot more power than just a coordinator.
It's just a misnowner is you ask me. Why not just "War Coordinator."

[Direckshun]

Here's an excerpt from a WLS (890-AM, Chicago) radio interview of Vice-President Cheney by Don and Roma Wade that happened this morning.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070413-3.html

Q What can you tell us about the war czar position? We understand the White House is thinking about establishing a war czar. Is there anyone whose name we should recognize being considered?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, what it is, it's really a coordination role. The basic chain of command is going to continue to run, obviously, from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and down to our commanders in the field. But there are a lot of activities with respect to what we're doing over there that require coordination between various agencies -- State and Defense and a lot of our domestic agencies that have roles over there in trying to help establish, for example, a good judicial system for the Iraqis. And pulling all of that together we think requires somebody here in Washington who would report directly to the President, and then have the authority to make certain everybody is delivering what they promised to deliver on time, and in effect, sort of ride roughshod, if necessary, over the bureaucracy to make sure we get the job done.

And that's the kind of post that was being talked about here. We are actively looking for someone who can undertake that assignment, and I'm convinced we'll have somebody here shortly.
The very idea that they haven't had somebody doing that already speaks volumes.

[patteeu]

Here's an excerpt from a WLS (890-AM, Chicago) radio interview of Vice-President Cheney by Don and Roma Wade that happened this morning.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070413-3.html

Q What can you tell us about the war czar position? We understand the White House is thinking about establishing a war czar. Is there anyone whose name we should recognize being considered?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, what it is, it's really a coordination role. The basic chain of command is going to continue to run, obviously, from the President, the Secretary of Defense, and down to our commanders in the field. But there are a lot of activities with respect to what we're doing over there that require coordination between various agencies -- State and Defense and a lot of our domestic agencies that have roles over there in trying to help establish, for example, a good judicial system for the Iraqis. And pulling all of that together we think requires somebody here in Washington who would report directly to the President, and then have the authority to make certain everybody is delivering what they promised to deliver on time, and in effect, sort of ride roughshod, if necessary, over the bureaucracy to make sure we get the job done.

And that's the kind of post that was being talked about here. We are actively looking for someone who can undertake that assignment, and I'm convinced we'll have somebody here shortly.

I was just wondering where you and your "evil" brother, jettio, have been. In case you were wondering, you've started 24 threads and he's started 16. Good to see you around posting solid info as usual. He should come back and post some profanity sometime, too. :)

[patteeu]

Interesting DanT...but Czar implies a lot more power than just a coordinator.
It's just a misnowner is you ask me. Why not just "War Coordinator."

Actually it implies just the opposite. When the 9/11 commission was pushing for some kind of czar-like official to coordinate Homeland Security functions (prior to the decision to create a new department), they specifically avoided describing the official as a czar because the history of US government czars (Drug and Energy) was that they were much more limited in power than the commission envisioned the homeland security guy having. This so-called war czar would be much more like the guy that the 9/11 commission envisioned in the homeland security role in terms of power to direct agencies.

[Adept Havelock]

:hmmm:

I can see putting someone under the Sec Def to co-ordinate. My question is if you create another post that reports directly to the president that doesn't go through the SecDef, what effect does this have on the concept of "Chain of Command"??

I did see Cheney's comments from the interview in DanT's post, I just can't see how they can be effective if they are not part of the Chain of Command. Nor can I see how that chain works if both SecDef and the War Czar report directly to the president.

[patteeu]

:hmmm:

I can see putting someone under the Sec Def to co-ordinate. My question is if you create another post that reports directly to the president that doesn't go through the SecDef, what effect does this have on the concept of "Chain of Command"??

I did see Cheney's comments from the interview in DanT's post, I just can't see how they can be effective if they are not part of the Chain of Command. Nor can I see how that chain works if both SecDef and the War Czar report directly to the president.

It's worked for years/decades with a DCI involved in tasking DoD assets for the purpose of intelligence collection.

[Adept Havelock]

It's worked for years/decades with a DCI involved in tasking DoD assets for the purpose of intelligence collection.

That's considerably different than command of troops in a combat situation, don't you think? Seems to me it is. :shrug:

Any observations from our military folks here on how this would affect the "Chain of Command", or "Unity of Command" principles?

[patteeu]

That's considerably different than command of troops in a combat situation, don't you think? Seems to me it is. :shrug:

Any observations from our military folks here on how this would affect the "Chain of Command", or "Unity of Command" principles?

I'm not so sure it's different because I'm not sure exactly what this person's role would be as far as commanding troops in combat situations is concerned. And I'm not sure that any of our military folks can comment on it either other than in terms of "if... then..." statements.