Qualified Generals don't want "War Czar" position.

The Washington Post reports that three different four-star Generals have turned down the offer to take "Viceroy-level command" of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, April 11, 2007; Page A01

The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

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. [Snip]

...the new czar would report directly to Bush and to Hadley and would have the title of assistant to the president, just as [national security adviser Steven J.] Hadley and the other highest-ranking White House officials have, the sources said. The new czar would also have "tasking authority," or the power to issue directions, over other agencies, they said.

To fill such a role, the White House is searching for someone with enough stature and confidence to deal directly with heavyweight administration figures such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Besides Sheehan, sources said, the White House or intermediaries have sounded out retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph W. Ralston, who also said they are not interested. Ralston declined to comment; Keane confirmed he declined the offer, adding: "It was discussed weeks ago."

Kurt Campbell, a Clinton administration Pentagon official who heads the Center for a New American Security, said the difficulty in finding someone to take the job shows that Bush has exhausted his ability to sign up top people to help salvage a disastrous war. "Who's sitting on the bench?" he asked. "Who is there to turn to? And who would want to take the job?" [Highlighting is mine - Editor PPS.]

I doubt that any American commander has been given this level of authority in the field since Douglas MacArthur during and after WW II, and even he didn't have the power to direct the Departments of War, Navy and State. But General Sheehan is suggesting that it is only nominal authority given by President Bush. Vice President Cheney would still be in the background sabotaging any efforts that he considered insufficiently hawkish.

If anyone wants to know why we are guaranteed to fail in both Iraq and Afghanistan (other than the fact that Iraq was the wrong war in the first place, and probably unwinnable before we invaded) the reason is clearly Dick Cheney in the background.