When I was in the Navy, isn't that what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was for? Am I missing something or did I hear wrong information or has our Commander-in-Chief gone totally FUBAR????????
2007-04-14 05:29:41 · 8 answers · asked by cme2bleve 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
A czar is like a dictator. The only countries I believe that has ever had a czar was Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria.
Originally, and indeed during most of its history, the title tsar meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, i.e., a ruler who has the same rank as a Roman or Byzantine emperor due to recognition by another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch). Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria, the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and by the 19th century it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of king,[1].[2] The modern languages of these countries use it as a general term for a monarch.[3][4] For example, the title of the Bulgarian monarchs in the 20th century was not generally interpreted as imperial (although the title was possibly implying imperial ambitions[citation needed]).
"Tsar" was the official title of the supreme ruler in the following states:
* Bulgaria in 913–1018, in 1185-1422 and in 1908–1946
* Serbia in 1346–1371
* Russia from about 1480 (or 1547) until 1721 (after 1721 and until 1917, the title was used officially only in reference to the Russian emperor's sovereignty over certain formerly independent states such as Poland and Georgia)
2007-04-14 06:17:21 · answer #1 · answered by suro25 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I am sorry but this seems like a completely stupid idea.
The US Armed Forces has always been run by three people basically.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff- the US military's highest ranking official
The Secretary of Defense- The civilian in charge of the US military
The President of the United States- the commander in chief, in charge of all aspects of the US military, both civilian and military and who has the final say in all its affairs.
War Czar??? Whatever I hope that it either goes away, or the next president gets rid of this position.
2007-04-14 05:43:19 · answer #2 · answered by h h 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means Bush the current war czar, because technically his position as Commander in Chief is the "war czar", wants to add yet another position to an already behemoth system he cannot manage to fob off responsibility for the debacle he started in Iraq. This way if it continues to go south, he can point the finger and say it is "his/her fault" not mine. Or better yet, if the "war czar" recommends pull out of troops he can say it was not is idea but will go with the war czar's suggestion. The generals aren't stupid, they see his thought process for what it is- an attempted scam on the American people so he does not have to continue to answer for his boneheadedness and preserve what little he has left of his so called "legacy"
2016-04-01 01:27:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that Jon Stewart summed it up best. It is a new position that falls between the Joint Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defence, and the President.
Its main role will be to take the blame for the mess in Iraq.
2007-04-14 05:53:16 · answer #4 · answered by Budda_Budda 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Chairman of the JCS makes policy in conjunction with the Department of Defense. They do not undertake strategy, tactics, or planning for ongoing operations but only see that policy is implemented to support not just operations in Iraq but where ever the US armed forces are concerned, i.e. Korea, Europe, Conus, etc. Particular operations require too much detailed planning and attention that the JCS cannot devote time to and still over see the entire DoD policy.
2007-04-14 06:54:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't understand it either... Operationally, the THEATER Commander (CENTCOM) is in charge, going thru SECDEF and the President... the JCS is tasked as an ADVISORY group to the SECDEF / President (and National Security Advisor).
I was Navy also, and my "tsar" was AIRPAC, then CNO, then SECNAV...
I loved Jon Stewart's rant on "The Daily Show" the other night... it IS amazing how the Republicans are now creating larger government...
2007-04-14 06:41:10 · answer #6 · answered by mariner31 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yeah I heard about this. Not sure it is the greatest idea, but I can see what the NCA is trying to do.
Basically, in wartime, the US Armed forces have a head honcho in the field (Pershing, MacArthur Eisenhower). Is that what the idea is wonder?
2007-04-14 06:16:16 · answer #7 · answered by The Landlord 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war czar's role will be similar to that of the drug czar: see that war is cheap, pure, and plentiful, just like the US drug supply.
2007-04-14 05:36:17 · answer #8 · answered by Studbolt Slickrock Deux 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋