Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Scratching My Head

I truly hope history is brutal to the man who currently occupies the Office of the President of the United States of America, because every time you think you've seen the last big blunder, another one comes along. We determined a long time ago that he was no real conservative, but now, I'm wondering if this guy, or any of the people who surround him, believe that American histroy began at any point prior to the year 2000.

I mean, first of all, we re-attacked a nation that had not been properly dealt with by the previous two Presidential administrations. Instead of using the real history with Iraq, this President created a PR machine for a 'new war' and re-invaded a nation not based on the fact that we were already in a de facto shooting war with said nation, but that said nation may have intentions to re-attack us or our allies at some future time. The justifications were made for pre-emptive war, which is not, historically, a good idea. But a bunch of milquetoast Democrats and Republicans decided to re-drink the kool-aid, re-ignore history, and we re-went, even though we were already there, already shooting and being shot at.

We re-won said war against this nation, and this President and his administration re-failed to properly deal with the aftermath of winning. Then things started getting really wierd.

Opposition to re-winning the war and re-failing to properly deal with the aftermath was considered 'surrender' to a force we had already soundly defeated. This ridiculous sound byte debate has dominated the American body politic since then, and this President and his Administration, sold as cartoon conservatives but acting like cartoon liberals, blamed everyone else, and re-forgot to set a wartime finish line.

Because of this increasingly shenanigan plauged political situation, and that Republican legislators re-ignored the American body politic's sneaking suspicion that we had already re-won a war we were somehow still fighting, they turned those legislators out. Then Democratic legislators elected instead then passed a measure affecting funding to the war. It was here I really understood the depth of this President and this Administration's complete obliviousness of how to run a war.

If this President and his Administration are to be believed, the United States Military, already re-victorious against a re-defeated enemy that remains resilient, is somehow operating on a six week budget for materiel and ordinance, and that the budget situations currently being re-debated will begin affecting troops on the ground this summer.

My mind is boggled by that line of thinking, and horrified that the President would admit that particular strategic supply line information. That his hawkish supporters echo these sentiments is equally bothersome, as it seems to suggest, on the part of conservative punditry, that it is acceptable to run a war on a six week operating budget. To me, that, more than anything, told me exactly how clueless this administration is.

Until I read the news today.

What the heck is a War Czar? The first six paragraphs of this article tell us exactly what has gone wrong with the war in Iraq, and probably the larger Global War on Terror. The absolute kicker is the mind blowing sixth paragraph:
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.
Well, if there is any short summary of why we are still fighting a war we've already won about 12 times since 1991, that's it right there.

That this "was a difficult job to fill" and a "newly created position" speaks untold volumes about mismanagement of a war effort.

Hey guys, before you create any new positions or reorganizations, and God help us before you get us into any more wars, perhaps you need to read up on some historical material about some other famous 'war coordinators' and how we found them and filled their positions quickly. You can start by googling the terms "Ulysses S. Grant," "George Marshall," "Douglas MacArthur," "Dwight Eisenhower," "Norman Schwartzkopf." Matter of fact, I think you can still speak with Stormin' Norman on the phone. I think former Secretary of State Powell has his number in the rolodex.

For examples of how other nations do this 'war coordinator' thing successfully, you may also want to look up the terms "Bernard Montgomery" and ""Gregory Zhukov".

You guys may also want to sit down with someone from the Pentagon and examine this 'chain of command' thing they have. I'm sure there are some Generals out there who wouldn't mind the title "Supreme Commander Allied Forces Iraq" or a fifth star in addition to their 'war coordinator' position. And if Lt. General Lute can pull off this war coordinator thing with some success, and bail your asses out of the worst policy debacle in American history, you may want to go ahead and work on giving him that fifth star for his services.


Eric said...

From what I gather, the "war czar" position doesn't actually add anything new nor change the command structure. The description of LTG Lute's new job in the NSC essentially is what the NSC should be doing anyway - managing interagency coordination under the President.

I see this as a statement of failure for the NSC and a boss shaking things up and finding somebody from outside the NSC loop to do the job that Bush's people have failed to do. As far as the NSC, it's a basic firing and hiring for the same job, with a new title slapped on it. It's not a radical departure, but it may seem like one if LTG Lute does the job well where his NSC predecessors have failed.

Cousin Pat from Georgia said...

Thanks for the clarification, especially the more in depth analysis you provide on your blog.

And your summary: "I just hope we’re learning these hard lessons in time to make a difference."

True 'nuff. And I think everyone in the whole nation is hoping LTG Lute makes this seem like a radical departure and does his job well and helps us close this thing.

Christopher said...

Forgive me, but I was doing the math and came up with this:

if a = Commander in Chief
and b = The ability to Lead our Nation
and c= War Czar


a - b = c

Furthermore, isn't the following supposed to hold true?

If b = 0 (which I think we can all agree is true) then a = c

So, these calculations beg the question, WHYDAFUCDOWENEEDAFRIGGINWARCZAR?