Amsterdan

Bi-czar failure

The Bush-Cheney White House is seeking a “war czar” to take control of their ill-conceived, incompetently executed, out-of-control Mid-east fiasco.

“Czar” and its spelling variants are a contraction of the word Caesar, referring to emperors, dictators and supreme leaders, especially in Russia, Bulgaria, and Serbia. In the US, it most recently refers to an expert in charge of implementing policy, e.g. the drug czar.

American czars have a sad history of failure. A series of Presidential drug wars, led by drug czars, have produced an exploding prison population (as befits dictatorial epochs) and little else. Meanwhile, our leaders can focus on fund-raising and PR, having delegated responsibility for real issues to some czar.

Three top retired generals have passed on the “war czar” job, including Army General Jack Keane, who, last December, promoted the idea of a U.S. military surge. Bush bought the Keane’s PR idea of a surge – which is, in fact, a mere escalation of “stay the course”. Now Keane wants no part of running his surge. His Marine counterpart, retired four-star General John Sheehan also rebuffed the White House job offer, telling the Washington Post, “The very fundamental issue is, they don’t know where the hell they’re going. So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, ‘No, thanks.’”

Bush’s failures of competence are reaching critical mass. The administration is imploding. Having failed to deliver a competent Commander in Chief, the Bushies now seek a surrogate.

Why do we need a “war czar” anyway? Isn’t that the job of the Commander in Chief? We need a competent Commander in Chief.

Labels: Bush, czar, failure, Iraq, Keane, Sheehan, war

posted by DanZ @ 2:48 PM