| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| The War Czar: Half The Story Of A Washington Intrigue |
| 2007-04-22 |
| Conservative national security officials are wondering what is going wrong inside the Bush White House. The choice of a retired Marine Corps general known for his liberal political views as a candidate for a "czar" over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has many scratching their heads and wondering whether the president is aligning his administration with the defeatists now opposing the war. The retired Marine in question is Gen. Jack Sheehan, who was asked to be the new coordinator, despite a reputation as a liberal military officer, something uncharacteristic of most Marines. He turned it down, not only in private, but then with an added slap at the president in an opinion article this week in The Washington Post. Officials pointed out one of Gen. Sheehan's shortcomings during his active-duty career: a past association with Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Ana Belen Montes, who in 2002 was convicted as one of the most notorious U.S. traitors and a damaging spy for the communist regime in Cuba. Officials said Gen. Sheehan shared some of Montes' liberal views both when he was director of operations, or J-3, on the Joint Staff and as U.S. Atlantic Command leader. Gen. Sheehan invited Montes to sit in on many top-secret military meetings, including those involving U.S. war plans against Cuba, the officials said. Montes not only stole some of the most sensitive U.S. intelligence secrets during her 16-year spying spree, but also acted as an influence agent who had significant sway over U.S. policies. Another incident that raised questions about Gen. Sheehan's consideration for war czar took place several years ago, when he angrily walked out of a Defense Policy Board meeting because of a talk by former CIA Director R. James Woolsey on Wahabbist terrorism, angrily noting that he didn't want to listen to such waste. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to say who was behind the consideration of Gen. Sheehan but stated in an e-mail that there is "no list" of candidates and "no one has been offered this job." Gen. Sheehan, in an e-mail, dismissed both claims about his candidacy for the czar post and past ties to Montes as "incorrect." Before being asked by the White House, "I am sure they checked my credentials and the record indicated I was an American who had served both Republicans and Democrats," Gen. Sheehan said. "Deal with the issue at hand on an objective basis, not character defamation." On the idea of a czar, one official said: "We don't need a czar. The president already has such a coordinator. He's called the national security adviser" — a dig at current National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley, whom officials described as "still deputy" to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, his predecessor at the White House post. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #9 The term "war czar" was a brain fart by Tom Ricks. Even this idiot general refers to it as a liaison job between depts. Of course, Ricks doesn't have to admit he was wrong. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2007-04-22 22:57 |
| #8 I've also wondered why there is a need for a war czar. Whoever is the war czaar needs to be careful he/she doesn't end up being a scapegoat. As "doc" said Patton is not available. Chesty Puller isn't either. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-04-22 17:39 |
| #7 The big question is "Why was he offered the job in the first place?" I find it unbelievable that the administration didn't know exactly what they would be getting with this 8-ball. So what is the frequency, Kenneth? |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-04-22 15:42 |
| #6 It's a pity This Man is unavailable. |
| Posted by: doc 2007-04-22 12:28 |
| #5 Look at the bright side: He turned it down! You can bet that there are more than one Donk silently crying in their beer over that turn of events (aka no ally inside the WH). |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2007-04-22 12:11 |
| #4 There should bee a general or two that fit the bill, look a little bit harder. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-04-22 11:40 |
| #3 WTF? Retired is the best place for this man. His obvious flaws in character and judgement should've disqualified him for anything to do with National Security |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-04-22 10:47 |
| #2 The last real 'War Czar' we had was George C. Marshall.. You don't need any new fancy title or office created with more bureaucracy. You just have to find someone you can trust and put them in charge by making it clear that everyone - State, CIA, DoD, etc works for him and cut the turf crap and fix on victory or get a new job. However, that requires will. Something sadly lacking in anyone but the guys on the ground. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-04-22 08:01 |
| #1 So much for listening to them. |
| Posted by: newc 2007-04-22 01:50 |
