From The Washington Post of 11 Apr 2007:
Quote:
3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'
Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan
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.
|
Nothing new in a report that confirms what the generals have long been saying quietly. This has long been a problem for George Jr and especially under Rumsfeld. An administration that overtly mocked even basic military doctrine is still dominated by the same wacko mental midgets.
No accident that the administration had to reach way down to Lt Gen Sanchez to find a commander for "Mission Accomplished". Suspicion remains so strong that the administration had to reach out to a Pacific based Admiral for a Central Command commander. So many previous generals remember what happened to Generals Shelton, Shinseki, Keane, Garner, Caffery, Schoomaker, Myers, and others.
Meanwhile, why a Czar for "Mission Accomplished" and Afghanistan? That is the job of Central Command's commander? Or is this Admiral not able to run both Central Command wars? Why another layer of bureacracy? Or must Central Command prepare for a third war? Who would an Admiral conduct attacks against?
Since 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management, then why would anyone work for an administration with so much contempt for the American soldier? Why would the administration need another general - another level of bureacracy? The obvious part is why so many generals don't want to work for George Jr's administration - where contempt for basic military doctrine is so extensive.