2007-05-16 12:02:18 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think the intention is to put another buffer level in place. A military man with Iraq experience to parrot everything the President says and shall we say "embellish" the point. Just another talking head to tell us what we are seeing and hearing on the nightly news is not what's really happening in Iraq. Maybe it pays more when you enter into a sacrificial position. I thought generals were smarter than that?
2007-05-16 12:13:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not necessarily, if the final decisions remain his domain.
A "war czar" could have the role of a White House / Army go-between, which means he'd take what the President wants to do and translate it into military terms, easier to tell to our military commanders.
As the Secretary of State acts as a go-between from the White House to the diplomatic corps.
2007-05-16 12:08:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure, but I definitely know he's going to use this guy as a scapegoat for all of te past mistakes. His czar has no real authority, but can take full blame for the mess in Iraq.
That being said, this guy might be able to have some successes in Afghanistan...maybe.
2007-05-16 12:06:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Great question.
Perhaps President Bush will use the newly appointed "war czar" as the excuse for losing in Iraq?
2007-05-16 12:06:43 · answer #4 · answered by ghostwriter 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We are already at war with Iraq congress gave him the right back in 2003. The president can't declare war but he can send troops anywhere he wants to he is the commander of the armed forces the only thing congress can do is cut off funding.
2016-04-01 04:59:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
He's looking for yet another poor s.o.b. to accept responsibilites for Bush's own failures.
I thought this was why this country had a Secretary of Defense, and Joint Cheifs of Staff.
Although it has become apparent that this President needs much more assistance than most grown-ups.
2007-05-16 12:07:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No
Remember his favorite book "My Pet Goat"
Bush just staffed a scape Goat
Go Team Bush Go
2007-05-16 12:07:34 · answer #7 · answered by ShortBus43 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, even though that might be a smart move.
"War czar" is just White House speak for "Scapegoat".
2007-05-16 12:07:11 · answer #8 · answered by ck4829 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, he's replacing a civilian advisor with a general... The post in question already existed, it's just been given a dorky new name.
2007-05-16 12:06:48 · answer #9 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, he is still the commander in Chief. Are you saying that FDR gave up his constitutional role when he appointed Eisenhower to lead the allied forces?
2007-05-16 12:05:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋