Quiet Bush Aide Seeks Iraq Czar, Creating a Stir

There is growing criticism of Stephen Hadley and his search for a new war czar by some who see the new war czar role as one that Hadley himself should be fulfilling and his search to appoint someone else as merely an attempt to shift the blame for a war that is going southwards.

“Steve Hadley is an intelligent, capable guy, but I don’t think this reflects very well on him,” said David J. Rothkopf, author of “Running the World,” a book about the National Security Council. “I wouldn’t even call it a Hail Mary pass. It’s kind of a desperation move.”

Mr. Rothkopf sees the new position as “a tactic to separate the national security adviser from Iraq” — a way to save Mr. Hadley’s reputation. Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton administration official who is co-writing a book on national security advisers, said the proposal “raises profound questions” about Mr. Hadley’s “ability to put heads together and make sure that the president’s wishes are in fact his commands.”

It's hard to argue with this logic. After all, why has this role been identified as critical four years into the war? Why wasn't this seen as critical earlier?

Mr. Hadley is one of Mr. Bush’s closest advisers. He is the first person the president sees in the Oval Office each morning and a constant, sober presence on international trips. Yet he is so relentlessly low-profile that it is difficult to get a fix on his views. Even his admirers have a hard time assessing his performance.

“I’m a big fan of Steve Hadley,” said Kurt Campbell, founder of the Center for New American Security, an independent research organization in Washington. “Whether he’s in the right job, and whether it’s too difficult, I’m not really sure.”

There is going to be a lot of this in the months to come as the Bushites seek people to blame for their failed war strategy and I'm not remotely surprised that there hasn't been a rush of applicants to have this particular noose tied around their necks.

Indeed, with Tenet taking to the airwaves to protest over how he was made a scapegoat for the Iraq invasion and the lack of WMD, there are enough reminders for everyone about how ruthless this administration are in finding other people to blame for their own inadequacies.

The party of personal responsibility only ever adhere to that principle when they are applying it to other people, when it comes to their own failings they are always swift to move the focus on to others.

For what other excuse could there be for Hadley outsourcing his own job?

With Mr. Rumsfeld gone and Mr. Bush taking a more assertive role in managing the war, people inside and outside the White House say the balance of power has shifted, and Mr. Hadley has emerged as more of a force. As Fred Kagan, a military historian who is considered the co-author of the troop buildup strategy, said, “I get the sense of a guy who is trying to do his job at a very difficult time and is actually being allowed to do it for the first time.”

That is one reason the war czar proposal has left some in Washington scratching their heads. At a recent press conference, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates described it this way: “This is what Steve Hadley would do if Steve Hadley had the time.”

But Mr. Daalder, who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, was mystified. “If Hadley doesn’t have time for this,” he asked, “what does he have time for? Our policy toward Nicaragua?”

Indeed, which is why it looks like, and is, merely a blame game.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Stephen Hadley, Iraq war, War Czar, Bush, WMD