The President Can't Find a "War Czar"

[MichaelC]

The Fall Guy selected.

From Tulsa World

quote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday chose Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Pentagon's director of operations and a former leader of U.S. military forces in the Middle East, to oversee the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as a war czar.

"General Lute is a tremendously accomplished military leader who understands war and government and knows how to get things done," Bush said, capping a difficult search for new leadership in the wars that have defined his presidency.

It was a difficult job to fill, given the unpopularity of the war, now in its fifth year, and uncertainty about the clout the war coordinator would have. The search was complicated by demands from Congress to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq and scant public support for the war. The White House tried for weeks to fill the position and approached numerous candidates before settling on Lute.

In the newly created position, Lute would serve as an assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser, and would also maintain his military status and rank as a three-star general.

The White House has avoided the term "war czar." Bush called Lute the "full-time manager" for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Lute has been director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff since September. Before that, he served for more than two years as director of operations at U.S. Central Command, during which he oversaw combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"He has already earned the respect and trust of the officials with whom he will be working in his new role," Bush said.

The new job comes as administration tries to use a combat troop buildup in Iraq to allow security and political reconciliation to take hold.

The White House has sought a war coordinator to eliminate conflicts among the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies. Lute will seek to cut through bureaucracy and deliver fast responses when requests come in from U.S. military commanders and ambassadors.

His addition will help Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, who monitors hot spots around the world.

Bush's move is part of a lengthy reshuffling of war leaders. Yet critics have questioned whether a new coordinator will help so late in the Bush presidency or will instead add confusion in the chain of command.

Lute's appointment is subject to Senate confirmation.

Until now, Hadley and other West Wing officials have tried to keep turf-conscious agencies marching in the same direction on military, political and reconstruction fronts in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the public's patience for the war has long eroded, and lawmakers - including members of Bush's own party - are pushing a harder line in ensuring that the Iraqi government is making progress toward self-governance.

Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Lute comes into the job with a stellar background in combat operation and agency coordination.

Yet the nature of the job poses an enormous challenge. Lute won't be able to deal with civil agencies the way he did with military officers, and his lack of budget authority or ability to reshape regulations could limit his clout, Cordesman said.

"You really need strong leadership and planning from the ambassador and from the commander in Iraq. They're the ones who have to interact with the Iraqis," he said. "In effect, you're a czar in a support role to field commanders and an ambassador 7,000 miles away."

A West Point graduate, Lute, 54, has had an extensive military career. He fought in the 1991 Gulf War.

From 1998 to 2000 he commanded the Second Cavalry Regiment at Fort Polk, La. He served next as the executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs for 14 months before joining the 1st Infantry Division in Schweinfurt, Germany, as the assistant division commander. He also served in Kosovo for six months in 2002 before being assigned to U.S. European Command in January 2003.

Jon Soltz, who leads an organization of veterans critical of administration's war policy, said there is already a war czar - Bush.

"The troops are now depending on Lt. Gen. Lute to do something the President wouldn't - listen to commanders who are telling him we need more diplomacy, not escalation," said Soltz, an Iraq veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org.

Retired Marine Corps Gen. John J. Sheehan was approached about the job, but declined because he thinks that decision-making in Washington lacks connection to a broader understanding of the region.

"These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff," Sheehan wrote in The Washington Post, explaining his reasons for not wanting to be considered.

[Conan71]

From WaPo

"In choosing Lute, Bush picked a key internal voice of dissent during the administration review that led to the troop increase. Reflecting the views of other members of the Joint Chiefs, Lute argued that a short-term "surge" would do little good and that any sustained increase in forces had to be matched by equal emphasis on political and economic steps, according to officials informed about the deliberations."

I think politically and strategically, this is a good pick.  He doesn't sound like a "yes" man.

[MichaelC]

I think it's a good political strategy.  I don't know that it's technically necessary, but it's a good strategy.

One of two things is happening.

It's possible that we are finally seeing a true "change of course".  The "War Czar" is an after effect, you've got Condi talking to Syria, the US finally allowing talks with Iran on the ambassador level.  There's a possiblity that the Administration is shying away from the "they're bad bad people" line, and is getting serious about getting something done in Iraq.  A "War Czar" that agrees with that, even if he's only there for cover, is a good strategy.

The second possibility is that the Administration sees Iraq as a no win situation.   If the Administration looks at this and says "this thing is winding down," and "we can't win on our terms, it's not worth it."  So many people mention throwing somebody "under the bus", if it comes to that, here's your guy. Either way, it's a good political strategy.

Everytime I've given this administration the benefit of the doubt, they've failed.  But we'll see.   There's a decent probability that they are now, "changing course."  The signs are there.

[Conan71]

I really don't see that they have much of a choice other than to make changes.  The Iraqi gov't doesn't seem to be stepping up to the plate, the war is bogging down other initiatives on the home-front, and I don't even need to comment on public opinion.  I took the "equal emphasis on political and economic steps" to mean that along with a surge they are looking to force Iraq to step up.

I have disagreed with the policy of no diplomacy with Syria and Iran from day 1.

Now whether or not it's just window dressing by saying: "I picked someone who isn't in lock-step with the rest of the admin." I dunno.

Hopefully this is a move in the right direction.

[rwarn17588]

I hope you're right, Michael C.

However, I see this as an abdication of responsibility. Isn't the commander-in-chief the "war czar"? Why does he need one? Is Bush trying to hand off the mess that he created to someone else?

Sorry if I sound cynical. But with this bunch, I draw no other conclusions.

As for winding down the war, I'll believe it when I see it. I think Bush has taken a "leaving is losing" mantra, and won't really do anything until a new guy takes over in 2009.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

I hope you're right, Michael C.

However, I see this as an abdication of responsibility. Isn't the commander-in-chief the "war czar"? Why does he need one? Is Bush trying to hand off the mess that he created to someone else?

Sorry if I sound cynical. But with this bunch, I draw no other conclusions.

As for winding down the war, I'll believe it when I see it. I think Bush has taken a "leaving is losing" mantra, and won't really do anything until a new guy takes over in 2009.

I had read the take on CIC being War Czar elsewhere.

I think he's admitting he's getting bogged down with the war, better to delegate so he can have some sort of focus on other matters.

Abdicating of responsibility, nah.  Politically wise delegation of duties, yes.  Ostensibly, Lute has been involved already so it's not like they walked in some poor boob off the street to take a bunch of flak.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I think he's admitting he's getting bogged down with the war, better to delegate so he can have some sort of focus on other matters.

Not to get to technical, but in a way, that's the definition of abdicating responsibility.  "It's bad, I'm getting out and giving it to someone else."  Instead of the "President says", we can start saying the "War Czar says".  If it goes down badly, it's a very good out.

I'm big on responsibility.  Example: Going back to the idea that "the military should make these decision about leaving and troop numbers," it's mostly true on a tactical level.  But if you do that on a strategic level, that throws all responsibility on the military.  If this gets any worse, I will not blame General Petraus, or anyone else in the military.  They do their jobs as best they can.  I don't want them to be responsible for Strategic Interests, they shouldn't be responsible for that.  That's a civilian responsibility.

I'm not sure Bush is abdicating responsibility.  It's possible, I hope not.  I do try to optimistic about these things.  There are certainly signs that things are changing now.  The "War Czar", as useless as it may seem, could very well be one of those signals.

[Conan71]

Michael, I'm slowly getting used to your technicalities. []

As a leader, you have to delegate to be effective.  I can't say I agree with every choice he's made as to whom responsibilities are delegated to and I think some traditional roles of Presidential administration have been over-stepped (and poorly handled) in this admin.  However, holding the lightning rod for the Iraq conflict for so long has made him fairly ineffective on domestic issues and foreign policy elsewhere.

As a two-term President whose entire legacy to date has been defined by an unpopular conflict, I can't say I fault his judgement on getting the focus of the war onto someone else.  Let someone else with military experience be the liaison between the admin and military.  Let someone else be the face of the war within the admin and work to change the legacy to include some positive accomplishments.  He won't ever be able to erase Iraq from his dossier.

I think this frees the President up for the next 1.5 years to try and focus on domestic issues which have been neglected during his administration due to so much focus on Iraq, both from within the administration, and as well from his opposition.

Abdicate, delegate- you guys can parse if you like.

[MichaelC]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Abdicate, delegate- you guys can parse if you like.

It's a little bit of the same thing, and a little bit not.  The difference is basically motives, which are all theoretical at this point.  

Like I said, I'm not sure he's abdicating responsibility for the Iraq War.  I'm not sure he's delegating either.  Seems to me, the "War Czar" could be mostly a symbolic position.  If they're already planning on heading his direction, they probably don't need him.  And I really don't know what this guy is supposed to do.

Beyond all that, no matter what the "War Czar" does, the one place he's needed most in this Administration is credibility.  It's severely lacking.  Just like changing Secretary of Defense, the new face will have more credibility by default.  There's almost no way, that this move is a negative for the Administration.

[Conan71]

Holy crap!  Did Hell freeze over?  We seem to agree on something.

IMO, War Czar sounded like a redundant position as well.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Now iplaw says I'm a coward and anti-democratic. The latter's really rich, especially after I've used that anti-democratic right to free speech.

My dad always said that the ones who resort to name-calling first are the losers of the argument.

[}:)]

 As long as your gas is cheap and France and Iran are still pretending to like us, you're happy.

Although I'd like cheap gas as much as anyone else, I must take exception to your statement. Iran, since the fall of the Shah, has never liked us, made no bones about it, and has never pretended to like us. And France, well, they have disdain for everyone.