Top US generals reject war tsar role for Iraq and Afghanistan

So Bush has set out to create a new post of War Tzar to oversee the conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the only problem he appears to have run into is that no-one wants the job.

Three retired generals approached by the White House about a new high-profile post overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and reporting directly to the president have rejected the proposed post, leaving the administration struggling to find anyone of stature willing to take it on.

One of the four-star generals said he declined because of the chaotic way the war was being run and because Dick Cheney, the vice-president and the leading hawk in the Bush administration, retained more influence than pragmatists looking for a way out.

It gets better:

One of the retired generals approached, Marine General John Sheehan, told the Washington Post: "The very fundamental issue is they don't know where the hell they're going."

One of the most astonishing things about this entire campaign has been it's lack of direction. And this has only been allowed to drift along for so long because of the mindless right wing knee jerk support that the Bush administration has enjoyed. Even before the war began there are reports that British intelligence was warning Blair that the Bush regime did not have any plans for what was to take place in Iraq after Saddam had fallen.

The moment the regime collapsed, looting broke out, which was greeted by Rumsfeld as a sign that "freedom is messy".

The writing was on the wall at that point. Order is the bedrock of any society, and yet here we had a US Defence Secretary applauding it's opposite and hailing it as if it signified freedom itself.

From that shaky start things got steadily worse with an administration that appeared unwilling to concede what was in front of it's face, attacking the press for not reporting "the positive stories" emanating from Iraq and only concentrating on the negative, as if what was written in print could in any way influence the nightmare that was unfolding before our eyes.

As Iraqi society fractured and broke in front of us, the US refused to admit that what we were looking at was the beginning of civil war. Indeed, George Bush's entire way of approaching this conflict appeared to fostered by the belief that, if we only stayed positive and refused to be discouraged, then victory was assured. It was as if someone had told him that the Vietnam war was lost through a "lack of resolve" - that old right wing canard - and that he had imagined that resolve alone could see him through. It's striking when one reads "State of Denial" that Bush ends so many meetings on this subject promising "to see it through" as if that itself is some kind of answer to the complex war that he has unleashed.

And so we find ourselves here. Five years into a conflict that shows no sign of abating, led by men who clearly have no vision for how to end this thing. Indeed, the best Bush can signal is an intention to hand this entire mess on to his successor.

Is it any wonder that, in these circumstances, a White House cut off and devoid from reality, finds it hard to recruit a new man to lead the charge?

Dick Cheney, as I have previously touched upon, is not only lacking in perception, he is actively engaging in the public dissemination of untruths. He continues to argue that Saddam's regime had links to al Qaeda, despite his own intelligence agencies telling him otherwise. As I said at the time:

So it is against this background of facts that we have to examine the claims that Dick Cheney continues to propagate. Leaving one with the uncomfortable conclusion that the Vice President is either so wedded to his beliefs that he literally ignores all evidence that does not fit into his preconceived notions of what is true, or he is a serial liar.

Why would anyone want to work for any regime where the views of such a fantasist were, not only listened to, but formed the actual policy of the government?

Unless the Bush regime is about to do a 180 degree U-turn, then whoever takes this job is being asked to participate in a fantasy, to literally accept a post where your task is to state that black is white and that victory is just over the next hill.

The unwillingness of the generals to take the job undermines recent attempts by the Bush administration to put a positive spin on the Iraq war. Mr Bush has claimed repeatedly over the past few weeks that there are signs his strategy of pouring extra US troops into Baghdad and neighbouring Anbar province is working.

Gen Sheehan said Mr Cheney and his allies "are still in the positions of most influence" in spite of two leading pragmatists, the defence secretary, Robert Gates, and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, winning support in the past four months for a diplomatic approach. After two weeks of discussing the job with Mr Hadley, Gen Sheehan rejected it: "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks.'

Why would anyone accept such a poisoned chalice?

Of course, they will eventually find someone insane enough to say yes, and it will be fascinating to see who that person actually is. As long as Cheney remains as influential as he has been, and as long as Bush continues to insist that everything is going swimmingly in Iraq, only a masochist would put himself into the position of taking on responsibility for such an obviously failed policy.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Bush, Iraq war, Afghanistan war, war tzar, Dick Cheney