Problems Solved

Well, now that we have our "war czar", I bet all our country's national security problems are solved.

Just kidding. The real problem here is that if we had a functional interagency process at the NSC, this would be unnecessary. Meanwhile, the sort of leadership qualities on the part of the president and the other key players that could, in theory, make the "czar" concept work just happen to be the exact same ones that could make the NSC process work properly. In short, this is either futile or unnecessary, and I'd bet heavily on futile.

Comments

Considering how the last real czar fared, you'd think we might want to avoid that term.

Posted by Njorl | May 16, 2007 9:08 AM

We already had a war czar. His name is President Bush. Until we get a new President, we are doomed to continue having the current national security problems.

Posted by Ron | May 16, 2007 9:54 AM

The guy sounds reasonably sane. Is this some kind of punishment?

Posted by MattNotYglesias | May 16, 2007 9:59 AM

Bush never gets tired of hiding behind people in uniform. "What makes you think you know more about how to conduct the war than the war czar?"

Either this guy has the power to call the whole thing off if he doesn't think it's going well, which would probably be unconstitutional, or he doesn't, in which case his role is a joke and he's in no sense "overseeing" the war.

This is a spectacularly ill-defined job that allows Bush to keep the prestige of the "commander-in-chief" title but slough off any substantive responsibility he doesn't want to a guy with stars on his collar. The idea that "bureaucracy" is what's holding us back in Iraq is laughable.

Posted by Steve | May 16, 2007 10:17 AM

Steve,

Also, how crazy that he picked an active duty military officer for the job. So a Lt. General is now going to being in the position to give orders to the Secretary of Defense?

And if he's not going to be giving orders, then why call him a "war czar", when in fact he's just a second National Security Advisor.

Posted by beowulf | May 16, 2007 11:23 AM

The job having already been leaked, as well as the refusals by those it was offered to, it had to be filled.

An active duty officer can't so no to the commander in chief. If you can't hire one, assign one.

Posted by Roger Tompkins | May 16, 2007 11:31 AM

I like the idea that Bush's response to difficult problems is to weld intractability onto a layer of bureaucracy. Problems are never going to worsen or demand prompt, cohesive responses. So, appearing to have a concern and appearing to have a plan is more important to the country than analysis, policy, and substantive action.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 16, 2007 11:39 AM

the reason we don't have a "functional" NSC process is the same reason the "war czar" job is futile: the man in the oval office. he has no executive abilities whatsoever.

Posted by howard | May 16, 2007 12:54 PM

The real purpose of the War Czar is to (a) blur the line of responsibility for war policy, and (b) appear to be doing something constructive.
Success or failure for the Bush administration must be judged on those terms.

Posted by blah | May 16, 2007 12:59 PM