Responding to a question about the newly created position of War Czar, at Johns Hopkins the other day, Wes Clark spoke well of General Lute but questioned the terminology of "WAR CZAR":
I mean, I don’t know where the terminology came from and it’s...it’s not only a little crazy, it’s actually illegal.
A few days ago on FOX Wes Clark said:
It's not a real position. All you'd be is a staff assistant. You'd be somebody who could go out there and make a public statement about it. In other words, it'd be a political job. You'd be making public statements to take the heat off the President but you wouldn't be in the position to really make a difference to the policy or to the actions on the ground. All of that has to go through the chain of command and you can't be in the chain of command.
Wes Clark's comment quoted in its entirety below, took place during the Q&A following his May 16th speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington DC.
The speech: "Legitimacy: First Task for American Security"
was highlighted here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Links to the audio (including Q&A) and a transcript (including Q&A) are here: http://securingamerica.com/...
and to the audio alone (including Q&A) here:
http://www.sais-jhu.edu/
His response on FOX can be linked to here:
http://securingamerica.com/...
First the Johns Hopkins Q&A:
Robert Guttman, Director of the Center for Politics and Foreign Relations (JHU- SAIS), which was hosting the event, asked Clark about Bush's recent appointment of a War Czar:
Robert Guttman: Quick question before we go back. (to audience questions)*
The White House yesterday announced uh, a War Czar for Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you think we need a War Czar and what do you think of the person they ann...chose?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well I think it’s always helpful for the...for any administration to have a readily accessible source of military advice and insight. And General Lute is a highly capable officer, he’s very well qualified. Um, he’s experienced on the ground, he’s experienced at staff levels. Um, he’s a brilliant officer and I hope he’ll help. But, a War Czar?
I mean, I don’t know where the terminology came from and it’s...it’s not only a little crazy, it’s actually illegal.
The chain of command runs from the President and the Secretary of Defense who are called in the National Security Act, the National Command Authority, to the Regional Combatant Commanders – in this case, Admiral Fallon. He’s in charge of combat in both theaters and he has his own line of communication.
The principal military advisor to the President, Secretary of Defense and Congress – by law – is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff so if the War Czar isn’t in the line of command and is not the principal military advisor, he could still be a very good staff assistant and that seems to be what he’s going to do and I don’t know what the terminology means but I think General Lute’s a fine officer and I hope he’ll be able to help straighten out American policy in the region.
..............
toward the end of the Q&Q Lawrence Kaplan picked up the question about the War Czar again:
Lawrence Kaplan: Lawrence Kaplan. First of all, I could be mistaken, but I think we stole "war czar" from the Russians, so I guess there was something worth stealing from the Russians after all.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: The war czar was Stalin, by the way.
Lawrence Kaplan: The war czar was Stalin, well see, there you go. So we’re stealing from Stalin?
On May 14th General Clark was asked about a War Czar by Jamie Colby on FOX:
http://securingamerica.com/...
Jamie Colby: Insurgents are changing their tactics as coalition forces crack down in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rebels now using chlorine tanker attacks and brutal bridge bombings these days to help beat and stay ahead of the terrorists. The White House may bring a new person on board, someone to oversee operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a so-called Terror Czar. I'm joined now by Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and a Fox News contributor. And I know what you're going to say, General. You're going to say we already have somebody that does that job.
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Absolutely right. I mean, it goes by...it's by law. There's a re...there's a regional commander, he's called the Combatant Commander, it's Admiral Bill Fallon who reports to the Secretary of Defense who reports to the President. That's the chain of command. You can't put somebody else in there unless they're under the Combatant Commander.
Jamie Colby: But with all the questions now about this particular war, why would it be wrong maybe to have an extra set of eyes?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, you can have as many staff assistants as you want but there's lots of ideas. The truth is that the military piece is a necessary but not sufficient component and most of us who've watched this from the very beginning and followed it very, very closely would tell you that the real failure has been the diplomatic failure in the region, not the failure of the military on the ground.
Jamie Colby: In the meantime, though, there are reports general, that there have been several retired generals that have been offered this position. Do you know about that?
GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Oh, I do. And um, they're all friends of mine and they're very competent men. They'd do a wonderful job in any position that the government asked them to serve in. But they've apparently declined this position because they recognize that it's not a real position. All you'd be is a staff assistant. You'd be somebody who could go out there and make a public statement about it. In other words, it'd be a political job. You'd be making public statements to take the heat off the President but you wouldn't be in the position to really make a difference to the policy or to the actions on the ground. All of that has to go through the chain of command and you can't be in the chain of command.
I'm curious why none of the Presidential candidates, be they Democrats or Republicans, have questioned the legality or authenticity of this new Bush "solution" to his predicament and once again his creating a "political" job and trying to dress it up as legal and authoritative.
Will we soon be hearing on all the cable shows:
The War Czar says "this" and the War Czar says "that", repeated ad nauseum?
Thanks General Clark for calling things honestly as you see them.
And by the way, General Clark, if you and Admiral Fallon http://www.commondreams.org/... and General Eaton and General Batiste and Jon Soltz and others who are standing up to Bush to stop a "preventive" attack on Iran are successful and/or you no longer feel under the constraint that your efforts on this would be tainted by political considerations, you would be most welcome by this diarist as our best hope to change the direction of this country were you to run for president in 2008.
http://stopiranwar.com/
http://www.votevets.org/
*diarist's insert