|
White House Searches for Iraq War Czar
May 06, 2007
Now that the White House is searching for a 'war czar,'
it begs the question of who has been coordinating U.S.
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan the past four years.
A team of West Wing players led by national security
adviser Stephen Hadley has tried to keep turf-conscious
agencies marching in the same direction on military,
political and reconstruction fronts. A few Bush aides
say privately, however, that the White House probably
should have recruited someone to oversee the war effort
a year ago.
Critics say the administration's job of coordinating the
war has never gone smooth enough or fast enough. And now
two key members of the White House team focused on the
war are leaving.
'The problem is not broad strategy and policy, it's that
the bureaucracy is so inefficient and there's been so
little follow-up that the machine doesn't work,' former
House Speaker Newt Gingrich said. He believes red tape
in Washington is the biggest obstacle to winning in
Iraq.
Gingrich has joined others in suggesting that a single
person report directly to Bush _ and perhaps the next
president _ and ask: 'What are the choke points? What
regulations do we need to fix?'
The new job comes as Bush's combat troop buildup is
trying to bring a degree of calm in Iraq so political
reconciliation and rebuilding can take root.
'We're at a point now where we've got a plan,' Hadley
said. 'Execution of that plan is now everything.'
Hadley said he wants to make sure that if any request
from the war zone bogs down among agencies, there is
someone who can speak for the president to get it solved
quickly.
'That's the kind of thing that I do, but I can't do it
full time,' said Hadley, who must monitor hot spots
around the world.
Hadley interviewed several candidates in the past few
days. He has contacted at least six retired military
leaders _ either to learn what they think about the job
or to try to persuade them to take it.
'This is really more of a head cracker than a czar _ a
bureaucracy cracker,' said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign
policy analyst for the Brookings Institution who likes
the idea.
'They want one point person to contact everyone else to
tell them that we need these 17 things by Tuesday to
comply with the president's top foreign policy
priority,' said O'Hanlon, a former adviser to the Iraq
Study Group. The panel concluded that duplication and
conflicting strategies at federal agencies were
undermining confidence in U.S. policy.
So far, there have been no takers for the job.
'It's the nuttiest idea ever,' said James Carafano, a
defense expert at Heritage Foundation.
He said a war coordinator at the White House would be
outside the regular chain of command. 'It confuses lines
of authority. It's like adding a fifth wheel on a car.'
Trying to integrate government operations inside the
White House is a prescription for disaster, he added.
'You're too far from the battlefield. You're in the
wrong time zone. You can't make timely decisions. You
don't have the staff,' he said. 'The administration will
be over before they even have the communications and
everything in place to do this.'
Vice President Dick Cheney said in a recent radio
interview that after a war coordinator is named, the
basic chain of military command would continue to run
from the president to the secretary of defense and down
to commanders in the field. But he noted that the state,
defense and other U.S. agencies have roles in Iraq, such
as helping the Iraqis set up a sound judicial system.
'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,' Cheney told WLS-AM in Chicago.
Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, wonders why anyone
would want a job in an administration nearing lame-duck
status; Bush's term ends in January 2009.
'We've had czars before,' Cordesman said. 'It doesn't do
any good to have a czar unless they have a clear focus
and can override members of the Cabinet.'
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.
'They need to be addressed before an implementation
manager is brought on board.'
The person who becomes assistant to the president for
Iraq and Afghanistan policy implementation will join
many new faces on the Iraq front:
_Gen. David Petraeus recently took command of U.S.
forces in Iraq.
_Ryan Crocker is the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq.
_Adm. William J. Fallon is now commander of U.S. forces
in the Middle East.
_Defense Secretary Bob Gates has been on the job for
only five month.
_The State Department also has a new chief of Iraq
reconstruction, Timothy Carney.
At the White House, the Iraq team is shrinking.
Meghan O'Sullivan, one of Hadley's deputies who handled
day-to-day coordination of Iraq, recently announced she
is leaving. On Friday, Hadley's deputy, J.D. Crouch,
said he was departing next month.
News |