Ray St. Louis
5/19/07
BETWEEN THE LINES
Wanted: War Czar. No czaring experience necessary, will train. Four-star general preferred but will
consider three stars. Salary negotiable. Duration of position uncertain.
I have a question for Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute: did you feel any trepidation about taking the job? After all,
no less than five four-star generals turned down the position before it was offered to you, a mere three-
star general.
I’m sure that you, as an educated and accomplished man, Lt. Gen. Lute, are aware that czars historically
have not done so well.
Case in point, the last actual czar, Nicholas II of Russia, who was assassinated along with his entire family
after the Russian Revolution in 1917.
The first, of course, would have been Roman emperor Julius Ceasar - from whose name the word “czar”
derives – also assassinated.
In between were a long line of czars, czarinas, Kaisers, and archdukes many of whom served no more
than a year or two before untimely demises brought on by illness, accident or political intrigue.
In our own country we’ve had drug czars, education czars, energy czars. We even have a brand new food
safety czar. None of the previous czars have accomplished much of a turnaround in their prospective
fields and most have failed miserably.
Not to make you nervous or anything, Lt. Gen. Lute. But the truth is that most political pundits see your
new position as one that was created out of the current administration’s need for a new fall guy –
someone to take the blame when the whole Iraq War house of cards comes crashing down.
Surely you’re aware of this Lt. Gen. Lute. Everyone says you’re a pretty smart guy.
Many people around the country have been wondering why we even need a war czar. After all, isn’t that
the job of either the Secretary of Defense or the President as Commander-in-Chief?
It’s too bad that the title War Czar was ever put forward to describe the job. The Bush administration is
trying, so far unsuccessfully, to change that. They’re saying the job title is actually more like Executive
Manager of Communications.
The reasoning is that this entire war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq would go a whole lot better if there
were someone in charge to cut through the layers of federal bureaucracy so that the needs of the so-
called boots on the ground were quickly and efficiently relayed to the White House and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
In other words: what we have here is failure to communicate.
If only this pesky communication problem had been addressed four years ago. Seems strange the chief
wagers of our two current wars would wait this long to address a problem that is basically bureaucratic in
nature so that these wars could be fought more effectively.
Unless, of course, it’s all a pretense and an Executive Manager of Communications is not what they really
want at all, and what they really want is a fall guy.
Beware the ides of March, Lt. Gen. Lute. Okay, the quote from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar doesn’t
quite fit – March is past. But the sentiment is correct.
Just be careful, sir. And watch your back.