This one baffles me...

[LOVEMYIRISH]

A czar for the wars? Have we ever had one of these before? (I can't remember any...)

Isn't this supposedly what the SecDef does? Or the Chairman of JCS?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776_pf.html

I wonder if they could convince Schwarzkopf to come out of retirement???

 

[marv81s]

I think it kinda makes sense to have a full time position just for the purpose of reviewing strategies for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, take some of the stress of the JCS and the sec of defense. So it does make sense to me, better get someone to take the job that isn't a "yes" man and is going to tell it like it is.

Maybe General Zinni eh?

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I think it kinda makes sense to have a full time position just for the purpose of reviewing strategies for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, take some of the stress of the JCS and the sec of defense. So it does make sense to me, better get someone to take the job that isn't a "yes" man and is going to tell it like it is.

Maybe General Zinni eh?

I don't get it though...we have fought plenty of wars and not needed this before.

I am NOT saying it's the wrong thing to do...I am just questioning "why now?". Did we have a War Czar in WW2 when we were fighting on multiple fronts? What about when we were deep in Vietnam and still involved in the Cold War?

I guess I am curious as to which position in government is not meetings it's previous obligations...OR was there a position that has been eliminated?

Honestly, this really seems like the SecDef's job...or the Chmn of JCS.

Just to be clear this is NOT a political thread per se...this is really an organizational question.

 

[marv81s]

only thing that I can think of LMI is that this is needed now because its a different kind of war that any of the previous wars that we have fought in the past and maybe they feel that position would give the Sec of Defense and the JCS a person that is totally dedicated to reviewing strategies 1000% of the time, not that those two shouldn't have been.

To be honest, I'm just trying to pull an educated guess out of my ass, I am kinda baffled too, but that is the only thing I can think of is that a new kind of war, calls for a new kind of position. Although Korea and especially in Vietnam guerilla warfare was huge problem for us, but I can't even call what the insurgents are doing that kind of warfare, more like chickenshit tactics, civilians as human shields, kids as decoys in car bombs to get past checkpoints, etc.

I'm rambling.

 

[Newc]

only thing that I can think of LMI is that this is needed now because its a different kind of war that any of the previous wars that we have fought in the past and maybe they feel that position would give the Sec of Defense and the JCS a person that is totally dedicated to reviewing strategies 1000% of the time, not that those two shouldn't have been.

To be honest, I'm just trying to pull an educated guess out of my ass, I am kinda baffled too, but that is the only thing I can think of is that a new kind of war, calls for a new kind of position. Although Korea and especially in Vietnam guerilla warfare was huge problem for us, but I can't even call what the insurgents are doing that kind of warfare, more like chickenshit tactics, civilians as human shields, kids as decoys in car bombs to get past checkpoints, etc.

I'm rambling.

Actually Marv, I think you may have something there. Ever since Vietnam, the face of war has radiacally changed with the growth of Guerilla warfare. I think you are on to something when you say this new position could devote 100% of their efforts to this war, hopefully resulting in a greater percentage of success. Its kind of like why a head coach hires an offensive cordinatior or quaterback coach, its to allow a greater amount of attention paid to one area of a plan in order to generate greater success. I think a Czar of War would be a good idea.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

only thing that I can think of LMI is that this is needed now because its a different kind of war that any of the previous wars that we have fought in the past and maybe they feel that position would give the Sec of Defense and the JCS a person that is totally dedicated to reviewing strategies 1000% of the time, not that those two shouldn't have been.

Agreed on all fronts.

Here's some background on the old Sec of War job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_War

I guess it seems like a SecDef job to me...HOWEVER, if the SecDef needs someone to run the active wars and coordinate between the branches, I guess it makes sense. But this person seems to be a referee between the SecDef and the SecState.

Seems kinda weird to me...almost like he's keeping the internal kiddies from fighting.

This was a pretty harsh assessment...but he's a Marine...he's honest.

"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.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

You don't want to have a Czar of Wars. We have CINC's who run theaters, and answer only to the president. This is important because alot of the job is political and intel. Tommy Franks spent a lot of time meeting with the leaders in the region and forming 'friendships' (at the least personal contact). This seems to be far better than what was done prior, with a lot of the infighting over missions being taken out of the equation. The CINC's have a lot of power, so I don't altogether buy the suggestion that this was simply Rumsfeld's war. He did not call all of the shots, what the CINC's typically ask for, they get.

 

[marv81s]

i saw those statements.

Can't say I disagree with him. Pretty much summed it up perfectly.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Rumsfeld pissed off a lot of generals because he wanted to streamline a lot of things, and forced the issue of "Not gonna continue doing things the old way". Please don't forget that these guys do have an axe to grind.