T Nation

Suddenly We Need A...

by Mary Shaw | May 17 2007 - 11:08am | permalink
article tools: email | print | read more Mary Shaw

Earlier this week, George W. Bush created a new official U.S. government position: “War Czar”

Huh?

This nation has gotten along just fine for more than two centuries, and through several wars, without a “War Czar”. Why do we need one now?

Is this Bush’s way of making the “War on Terror” seem more urgent, or more important, than all those previous wars (such as WWII), for which we did not have a “War Czar” on the payroll (as far as I can tell)?

Or is it that this administration is so bloodthirsty that it needs to appoint yet another official person in charge of war operations, in addition to the Secretary of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, etc.?

Or perhaps is it that the administration, deep down inside, really does see that this “War on Terror” thing is truly out of control, so they need another scapegoat?

As of yesterday, at least three retired four-star generals have spurned the idea. To read their views as published by the Washington Post, click here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001776.html

War is supposed to be a defensive activity of last resort. We shouldn’t need a freaking “War Czar” now. But then, we shouldn’t be at war now at all.


About author Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist. She currently serves as Philadelphia Area Coordinator for Amnesty International, and her views on politics, human rights, and social justice issues have appeared in numerous online forums and in newspapers and magazines worldwide. Unless otherwise noted, the ideas expressed here are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Amnesty or any other organization with which she may be associated.

I thought this title was an odd choice when I heard it the other day.

Typically when I think of a Czar I think of an absolute ruler, a commander in chief if you will.

In the context of the US government though I think of the “Drugs Czar” or the more recent advent, the “Intelligence Czar”. Given how well those endeavors have gone, do we really want a “Czar” for Iraq?

Once the insurgents hear that we’re applying our organizational methods from the War on Drugs to stabilizing Iraq I’m sure they’ll give up all hope.


Drug czar = More drugs in our streets.

Education czar = Our kids keep on getting dumbed down in publik skools.

War czar = Never ending imaginary “War on Terror”

You guys just don’t get it: wars prop up governments. They are necessary to keep a society stable.

Ever see how farmers tie corn stalks together, so they prop each other up? The Iranians and Al-Qaeda prop us up and we do likewise for them. Afterall, without us, recruitments would go down in the Al-Qaeda ranks. Without them, spending billions on defense become superflous.

The Russians self-imploded, so we needed a new enemy. Get with the agenda.