About three weeks ago, the Washington Post had a fascinating scoop: the White House was looking (unsuccessfully) for a “high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” The person would apparently be the new Commander in Chief — coordinating military policy and having the power to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department, and other agencies.
The report made the White House look utterly ridiculous. Not only were generals turning the Bush gang down, but the very notion that they were looking for someone who could oversee war policy made the president and his team look even more tragically inept than usual. As Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show, “So there you have it folks — five years into the global war on terror, the president believes it is now time for someone to be in charge of it.”
I genuinely expected the White House to bury this story as quickly as possible. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, if I’m part of the White House communications team, I’d downplay the Post story, deny that any formal offers went to anyone, and insist that the idea was only in the discussion stage among low-level staffers.
But not these guys. Having fallen into a hole, the Bush gang decides to keep digging.
Stephen J. Hadley would be the first to tell you he does not have star power. But Mr. Hadley, the bespectacled, gray-haired, exceedingly precise Washington lawyer who is President Bush’s national security adviser, is in the market for someone who does — with the hope of saving Iraq.
Mr. Hadley is interviewing candidates, including military generals, for a new high-profile job that people in Washington are calling the war czar. The official (Mr. Hadley, ever cautious, prefers “implementation and execution manager”) would brief Mr. Bush every morning on Iraq and Afghanistan, then prod cabinet secretaries into carrying out White House orders.
It is the kind of task — a little bit of internal diplomacy and a lot of head-knocking, fortified by direct access to the president — that would ordinarily fall to Mr. Hadley himself. After all, he oversaw the review that produced Mr. Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq. But his responsibilities encompass issues around the globe, and he has concluded that he needs someone “up close to the president” to work “full time, 24/7” to put the policy into effect. He hopes to fill the job soon.
“What we need,” he said in a recent interview, “is someone with a lot of stature within the government who can make things happen.”
Hadley has to realize how ridiculous this sounds, doesn’t he?
When Hadley says he needs to find someone who can help save Iraq, it reminds us that the White House team is too incompetent to do it themselves.
I was also struck by the notion that Hadley’s global responsibilities keep him too darned busy to do his job effectively. To hear him tell it, it may be his job to coordinate and execute war policy with the State Department and the Pentagon, but he can’t limit his time to just two little countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. I’d love to ask Hadley: what else is on your plate that requires your attention? You’re the NSA, for crying out loud. If you can’t do your job, quit.
“Steve Hadley is an intelligent, capable guy, but I don’t think this reflects very well on him,” said David J. Rothkopf, author of “Running the World,” a book about the National Security Council. “I wouldn’t even call it a Hail Mary pass. It’s kind of a desperation move.”
Mr. Rothkopf sees the new position as “a tactic to separate the national security adviser from Iraq” — a way to save Mr. Hadley’s reputation. Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton administration official who is co-writing a book on national security advisers, said the proposal “raises profound questions” about Mr. Hadley’s “ability to put heads together and make sure that the president’s wishes are in fact his commands.”
You think?
But my favorite line is the notion that the White House needs someone who can “make things happen.” It’s not just that this makes Hadley sound weak and powerless, it’s that he actually has the problem backwards. The Bush gang — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Hadley — have made all kinds of things happen. They came up with a strategy for the Middle East and implemented it. Sure, it was a fiasco of nightmarish proportions, but they clearly executed a specific policy.
Hadley doesn’t need someone to make things happen; he needs someone who can make something else happen. Good luck with that.