War Czar?

Um, wouldn't that be the Commander in Chief? Isn't this "war czar" nonsense a way to find someone to blame when Iraq fails to improve, other than the President? Isn't that pretty much how the "Drug Czar" position has been handled, as a convenient scapegoat?

Maybe that's why nobody wants the job.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

We already have generals responsible for day-to-day operations. The "war czar" would just add another layer of bureaucracy. And this is supposed to be the party of smaller government.

What is needed in Iraq is a permanent diplomatic envoy, to try and forge a political solution, a cease-fire, something. Maybe they could get Bill Richardson, he seems to be able to negotiate landmark deals with supposed enemies in his spare time, when he isn't running New Mexico. By the way, he didn't need a "North Korea czar" to do it.