A war czar .... ? haha

[poptart]

I must be hallucinating.
Is this for real ... ?

wt ... f .... ?!?!?

Sure, I vote to let junior Bush appoint a czar (on the taxpayer's dime), if he first tatoos I AM INCOMPETENT on his forehead.

[Mister Bushice]

He's being chosen by Dubya - isn't that stigma enough?

[Felix]

An incredibly stupid idea, though.

just another in a long line of incredibly stupid ideas......

[See You Next Wednesday]

And PowerPoint presentations...

[Mikey]

C'mon. Introducing another layer of bureaucracy is the solution to all problems. That and study groups. Study groups are awesome.

One thing I'll have to give this Administration, they're pretty good at coming up with ways to look like they're doing something. Most of the country, though, is by now on to their phony time buying tactics.

[Dinsdale]

This "smaller government" promise is going well.

[Cuda]

War Czar?

Isn't that the Secretary of Defense's job?

I thought we already had one of those.


The ONLY way the Stupid Party is going to avoid a total ass raping in 2008 is to get the ball rolling themselves, for themselves, to impeach Chimpy right fucking now.

[Cuda]

He's just real busy doing....stuff.

Best I could do. The IT guys here at the office automatically block google searches for things such as "beating off"

[Felix]

Study groups are awesome.

And PowerPoint presentations...

can you picture how awesome a War Czar study group that did powerpoint presentations would be.......

that is almost unimaginable......

[Tom In VA]

That pic always gets a laugh.

[Goober McTuber]

here at the office

I laughed.

[See You Next Wednesday]

Study groups are awesome.

And PowerPoint presentations...

can you picture how awesome a War Czar study group that did powerpoint presentations would be.......

that is almost unimaginable......

Almost...

http://armsandinfluence.typepad.com/arm ... owerp.html

Death by PowerPoint
IN THE NEWS
In the business world, the phrase "death by PowerPoint" refers to a professional presentation during which the speaker numbs the audience with far too many PowerPoint slides, often crammed with far too much detail. In the US military, particularly after the Iraq war, "death by PowerPoint" may acquire a much different connotation.
Regularly, I've made the argument here at Arms and Influence that the US military has absorbed some bad habits from American business culture. While other parts of the national security community are equally guilty of making these mistakes, the military usually pays an especially terrible, bloody cost for these errors. .

However inappropriate PowerPoint may be for drafting and commncating battle plas, that's exactly how top military and civilian leaders used it in Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Here's a disturbing quote from Thomas Ricks' Fiasco:


[Army Lt. General David] McKiernan had another, smaller but nagging issue: He couldn't get Franks to issue clear orders that stated explicitly what he wanted done, how he wanted to do it, and why. Rather, Franks passed along PowerPoint briefing slides that he had shown to Rumsfeld: "It's quite frustrating the way this works, but the way we do things nowadays is combatant commanders brief their products in PowerPoint up in Washington to OSD and Secretary of Defense…In lieu of an order, or a frag [fragmentary order], or plan, you get a bunch of PowerPoint slides…[T]hat is frustrating, because nobody wants to plan against PowerPoint slides."

That reliance on slides rather than formal written orders seemed to some military professionals to capture the essence of Rumsfeld's amateurish approach to war planning. "Here may be the clearest manifestation of OSD's contempt for the accumulated wisdom of the military profession and of the assumption among forward thinkers that technology—above all information technology—has rendered obsolete the conventions traditionall governing the preparation and conduct of war," commented retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, a former commander of an armored cavalry regiment. "To imagine that PowerPoint slides can substitute for such means is really the height of recklessness." It was like telling an automobile mechanic to use a manufacturer's glossy sales brochure to figure out how to repair an engine.

Ricks reproduces one of the PowerPoint slides that Joint Task Force IV, the group initially responsible for explaining how "Phase IV" (the occupation) would work. I defy anyone to make sense of this graphic, which was supposed to depict the political outcome that, Clausewitz-style, military action against the Ba'athist regime was supposed to manufacture.

You can't blame the problems of the occupation of Iraq on some unnamed functionary who couldn't use PowerPoint effectively. The problem was using PowerPoint at all. Anyone experienced with this tool could explain the obvious deficiencies, when used as a replacement for planning documents:

PowerPoint slides are talking points, not the conversation itself. PowerPoint slides are supposed to help organize and illustrate what the speaker is saying. They are not, however, the complete communication. Therefore…

-PowerPoint slides are not self-evident. Since slides provide the mere skeleton of an argument, not its actual content, people who have read the slides but not heard the presentation normally cannot figure out what the speaker is trying to say.
-PowerPoint slides always change. Anyone who has had to present the same information multiple times usually varies the content. William Jennings Bryan constantly revised his famous Cross of Gold speech, refining it with every iteration. Every speaker gets tired of using the same words and intonation, so for sheer novelty value, the content will change.
-PowerPoint compels the most superficial reconsideration of your own position. While PowerPoint forces you to organize your thoughts to some degree, it does not ignite a reconsideration of your own argument the way a written document does.
-PowerPoint provides a thumbnail sketch of what you might say; written documents make you actually say it. Not surprisingly, authors of written documents find themselves altering their opinions as they write. For example, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, in writing the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, found his position changing as he wrote his opinion.

In contrast to the loose, mutable medium of PowerPoint, the US military normally uses rigorous, well-established ways of drafting, reviewing, and communicating decisions. For example, a battalion commander might ask his staff to draft two or three options for a particular operation. Each option must have enough substance to delineate the assumptions it makes, the means through which it will achieve the operational objective, its pros and cons, the risk the battalion assumes in following it, and the fall-back plan. Not only do these options require a lot of words, but they also need a lot of diagrams, including the position of each unit at different points in the operation.

Once the options are drafted, the lieutenant colonel commanding the battalion has to actually read them. In fact, his subordinates need to be ready to answer pointed questions and hear blistering critiques. Even in the heat of battle, the battalion CO and his staff frequently have to make sufficient time to for this process.

Once the battalion commander reaches a decision, the next step is to communicate it down the chain of command. Company, platoon, squad, and fire team leaders need to understand what's expected of them. While their exact contribution to the overall plan may not always be obious—for example, while a battle rages back and forth, soldiers often complain about the number of times they have to take the same hill—what's expected of them at this particular moment needs to be completely clear. Some of the most famous errors in military history—for example, during the battle of Gettysburg, Confederate General Richard Ewell 's failure to take Cemetery Hill—can be blamed on unclear or conflicting orders.

Keeping these realities of warfare in mind, it's easy to understand why military communications have a particular form and substance. To reach this primary objective, in this specific area of operations, these particular units are expected to attack or defend. At specific points in time, they are expected to have achieved these measurable goals (a particular enemy unit retreated, a particular town successfully defended, etc.). The plan assigns clear responsibility for different tasks, such as providing fire support for maneuvering units, to specific units. Everyone understands when the plan is complete, when particular results have been achieved. In case of failure, the plan explains what to do next, or assigns responsibility for improving the next steps to particular individuals.

The language of military communications may be dry, unimaginative, and redundant, but that's exactly what it needs to be. Individuals under fire don't have the luxury to perform literary interpretation. In drafting these plans, commanders and their staffs might realize that they have overlooked key details, or failed to make the objectives and responsibilities clear. In a PowerPoint presentation, the speaker can pick up the slack during the presentation itself, or during the Q&A section at the end. In combat, no such opportunity to ask basic questions like, What did you mean by that?, presents itself.

The Iraq disaster did not happen because someone in the JTF-IV planning group or the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) couldn't write a good PowerPoint presentation. The problem was that anyone used PowerPoint to plan a war. Ricks is absolutely right in saying that only the most careless individual, in love with information technology for its own sake, would misuse technology in such an obvious fashion. Unfortunately, these are the people who planned and executed the Iraq war, and many of them are still prosecuting America's wars.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSA ... dia_01.pdf

[Dinsdale]

I'm kind of all about impeaching the entire White House and Congress for their crime.

Unless someone could point out to me where in Article 1, Section 8 it says it's OK to override the checks and balances system and pass the buck on to a different branch?


Congress declares war. Period. No provision in any part of the Constitution says "you can pass a law that eliminates the checks and balances system."

It was written that way for a reason. And now we're seeing an excellent example of why.

[Dinsdale]

Bullshit.

Congress declares war...PERIOD.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states it may transfer that authority to the Executive Branch.


That dog don't hunt. Congress is Constitutionally bound to either declare war or not. It is illegal to pass any measure that grants that authority to any other entity besides Congress. PERIOD.


It's time to take traitors to task for violating the Constitution. Put every meber of all 3 branches against the wall. Except maybe Ron Paul...I kinda like that guy. Big fan of the Constitution, that Ron Paul.

[BSmack]

Bullshit.

Congress declares war...PERIOD.

There is nothing in the Constitution that states it may transfer that authority to the Executive Branch.

As much as I hate to agree with mvscal on anything, he's right. Congress made their bed when they authorized the use of force. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the President from operating militarily without a declaration of war. Sadly the founding fathers never considered the prospect of "police actions" when limiting the power of the Presidency.

[Dinsdale]

There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the President from operating militarily without a declaration of war.

Actually, there is. Article 2, Section 2.

when called into the actual service of the United States

Congress calls the armed forces to the service of the country, THEN the president becomes CiC.

The War Powers Act shouldn't mean shit, since it's also unconstitutional. It should merely serve as an emergency plan that allows the president to take quick, prudent action, SHOULD US SOIL BE ATTACKED...and not for foreign invasions.


There was a good reason the Founders made this C&B system...and we're witnessing it firsthand.

[Dinsdale]

But...maybe I'm wrong...


Maybe we should see what the Father of the Constitution had in mind when he wrote it...

"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. ... In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies.... A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."

So, kindly shut the fuck up, traitors.

[Dinsdale]

A joint resolution of Congress authorizing the executive to utilize military force fits the Constitutional requirement.

"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. ... In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies.... A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."

Damn, what a dilemma -- should I favor mvscal's interperetation of the Constitution, or that of James Madison?


Man, it's a tough call.

[Dinsdale]

More revisionist history from mvscal...shocking.


It's only been 4 years, and apparently it needs explaining.

Congress said "Aw gee W, I guess you can declare war if you feel like it."

Any other representation of these events is a bald-faced lie.


So, if you could point out to me where in Articles 1 or 2 that the federal government is authorized to resrtucture the checks and balances system on a whim, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for nothing in advance.


Maybe you should brush up on the English thing, so you might be able to understand what The Father said about delegating the authority of declaring war to the excutive. Maybe if you run your finger underneath the words as you read them, it might help?


Lotsa traitors up in this bitch.

[BSmack]

Actually, there is. Article 2, Section 2.

when called into the actual service of the United States

Congress calls the armed forces to the service of the country, THEN the president becomes CiC.

How big a fucking tard are you?

Here's the whole passage...

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

As those of us with IQs over room temp can see, the President is CiC of the Army, Navy and now the Air Force on a perpetual basis. The phrase "when called into the service of the United States" refers to the President's authority in regards to state militia units called into service. Only an absolute fucking moron could fail to see this. Or maybe someone who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about but who like to argue about it anyway.

The War Powers Act shouldn't mean shit, since it's also unconstitutional. It should merely serve as an emergency plan that allows the president to take quick, prudent action, SHOULD US SOIL BE ATTACKED...and not for foreign invasions.

There was a good reason the Founders made this C&B system...and we're witnessing it firsthand.

There's a 3rd party to the system of checks and balances. You know, the Supreme Court? If you think the war powers act is unconstitutional, go make a case to them. Let me know how that goes for you.

[BSmack]

A joint resolution of Congress authorizing the executive to utilize military force fits the Constitutional requirement.

"Of all the enemies to liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. ... In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The Constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the Legislature the power of declaring a state of war [and] the power of raising armies.... A delegation of such powers [to the president] would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."

Damn, what a dilemma -- should I favor mvscal's interperetation of the Constitution, or that of James Madison?

Man, it's a tough call.

I'll make it a little easier for you. Ever hear of the First and Second Barbary Wars? Both Jefferson and Madison operated without formal declarations of war during those conflicts.

So tell me again. How did Madison feel about this topic?

[Dinsdale]

I'm a big Madison/Jefferson guy(sin, Marcus), but they fufilled their own prophecy and overstepped their bounds, imo. Although it can certainly be argued that the Barbary Wars weren't really wars, but emergency police actions, since American citizens and their property were being harmed on the international seas...although the "police action" grew legs and overstepped a little bit, but was kinda hunting down the perpetrators and bringing them to justice, the same excuse that's being sold for Afghanistan, although there were no American hostages in Afghanistan.


As far as "As those of us with IQs over room temp can see, the President is CiC of the Army, Navy and now the Air Force on a perpetual basis. The phrase "when called into the service of the United States" refers to the President's authority in regards to state militia units called into service."...


Uhm...you DO realize the US had no standing military when that was written, right?

It was ALL "militia"(which was used in the context that every American citizen(adult males, anyway) is responsible for contributing to the country's defense when neccessary, even though many were considered "unfit for service" -- they were still part of the "militia." A "well-regulated militia" can certainly consist of one person, using the definition of the day. And it's up to the individual to regulate himself, so long as he does it well(doesn't inflict harm on fellow Americans).

So until Congress "raises" an army, it's not much use to a CiC, eh? THAT'S what's meant by "when called into service of."


So that whole schpeil is kind of moot.

[BSmack]

I'm a big Madison/Jefferson guy(sin, Marcus), but they fufilled their own prophecy and overstepped their bounds, imo. Although it can certainly be argued that the Barbary Wars weren't really wars, but emergency police actions, since American citizens and their property were being harmed on the international seas...although the "police action" grew legs and overstepped a little bit, but was kinda hunting down the perpetrators and bringing them to justice, the same excuse that's being sold for Afghanistan, although there were no American hostages in Afghanistan.

Or maybe Madison knew exactly what he meant when he helped pen the Constitution.

As far as "As those of us with IQs over room temp can see, the President is CiC of the Army, Navy and now the Air Force on a perpetual basis. The phrase "when called into the service of the United States" refers to the President's authority in regards to state militia units called into service."...

Uhm...you DO realize the US had no standing military when that was written, right?

It was ALL "militia"(which was used in the context that every American citizen(adult males, anyway) is responsible for contributing to the country's defense when neccessary, even though many were considered "unfit for service" -- they were still part of the "militia." A "well-regulated militia" can certainly consist of one person, using the definition of the day. And it's up to the individual to regulate himself, so long as he does it well(doesn't inflict harm on fellow Americans).

So until Congress "raises" an army, it's not much use to a CiC, eh? THAT'S what's meant by "when called into service of."

So that whole schpeil is kind of moot.

Dins,

You're all over the place. I guess that happens when you're furiously attempting to argue an absolutely insane argument. I'll just say that there was a standing army back then and it was used as early as 1791 by none other than George Washington.

So I guess your whole "there was no standing army" bit is kinda moot.

[Dinsdale]

I'll just say that there was a standing army back then and it was used as early as 1791 by none other than George Washington.

No, the standing army was assembled for George Washington in 1791. The Continental Army was disbanded sometime shortly after the Treaty of Paris was ratified. So from 1783 to 1791, there was no standing army. And the Constitution was written/adopted in 1783. Try some math on for size.

[Cuda]

Nevermind that the Constitution actually prohibits a standing (i.e. permanent) army. It does, however, provide for a permanent Navy and, by extension, the Marine Corps. It could even be argued that the Air Force is merely the Navy of the Sky.

But a permanent Army... nyah!

[BSmack]

I'll just say that there was a standing army back then and it was used as early as 1791 by none other than George Washington.

No, the standing army was assembled for George Washington in 1791. The Continental Army was disbanded sometime shortly after the Treaty of Paris was ratified. So from 1783 to 1791, there was no standing army. And the Constitution was written/adopted in 1783. Try some math on for size.

No, the Constitution was written in 1787, ratified by the necessary majority in 1788 and the first government under the Constitution took office in 1789.

Try a fucking book on for size.

And yes, Washington assembled a standing army in 1791. And he never disbanded it. And neither did his successors.

[BSmack]

Nevermind that the Constitution actually prohibits a standing (i.e. permanent) army. It does, however, provide for a permanent Navy and, by extension, the Marine Corps. It could even be argued that the Air Force is merely the Navy of the Sky.

But a permanent Army... nyah!

Actually, the sole limitation on the Army in the Constitution is that "no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years".

The power of appropriation is a power the Congress is trying to wield now. If only they weren't so afraid of being called "anti-troop" by the Chimp In Chief.

[PSUFAN]

It's amusing to see some of Bush's more avid supporters joining in on the "Chimp" stuff.

[Tom In VA]

It's amusing to see some of Bush's more avid supporters joining in on the "Chimp" stuff.

Amusing how ?

[PSUFAN]

Never mind Tom - I am certainly not referring to you. You don't at all appear to have shucked your Bushie status.

[Tom In VA]

What do you mean ? You mean the way I laughed at that picture ? What ? Amusing how ? What's amusing about it ?

[BSmack]

What do you mean ? You mean the way I laughed at that picture ? What ? Amusing how ? What's amusing about it ?

The Pesci is strong in this one.

[Tom In VA]

sssshhhhh, you get it B, but I don't want to ruin PSUFAN's roll when he's on full "Let me try to be Dinsdale" mode. It's real serious stuff to him. If he finds out I'm clowning with a Good Fellas reset, it might disrupt his self of steam.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Pictures?!? Chimpy like pictures! Give Chimpy pictures!!

That pic always gets a laugh.

Tears, Jerry. Tears.

Not because of the pic per se, but because of who is referencing it.

But back to the topic at hand, which has been hijacked six ways from Sunday by now . . .

I have questions as to the Constitutionality of the whole office of "War Czar" in the first place. The Constitution grants certain powers to both the President and to Congress vis-a-vis war. That's it.

And yes, I am aware that there is a Department of Defense which is not specifically authorized by the Constitution but which exists, as a sub-branch of the Executive Branch. Of course, the President ranks above the Secretary of Defense on the Chain of Command.

Even if the office of War Czar is not unconstitutional, I also have questions as to its organizational capacity. Will the War Czar be essentially an Undersecretary of Defense? If so, is it a permanet position? Or will it operate in its own capacity?

A terrible idea, in any event.

[PSUFAN]

It's just another dude to hang some blame on. Chimpy needs all of those he can get.

[BSmack]

It's just another dude to hang some blame on. Chimpy needs all of those he can get.

Blaming Douglas Lute for the failure in Iraq would be like blaming your 3rd string QB for blowing the game after your starting and backup QBs toss 6 INTs. Even the most die hard Kool Aid drinker in the White House has to know that when (not if) Gen. Petraeus reports that all is lost in Iraq, that blame will rest on Chimpy's shoulders alone.

No, the appointment of a "War Czar" runs true to the nature of the Bush Administration every time it comes face to face with failure. When policy and rhetoric fails, they go right to work making more and bigger government to solve the problem.

[Cuda]

I have questions as to the Constitutionality of the whole office of "War Czar" in the first place.

Most certainly due to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

My guess is, if the senate confirms him, the position will be, de-facto, constitutional

Will the War Czar be essentially an Undersecretary of Defense?

No, he's not in the chain of command. He's only a lieutenant general. MNF-I and CENTCOM are both four star commands, so Lute giving orders is out of the question. This position really doesn't sound all that different from his current position as J3 at the Pentagon. He appears to be some sort of administrative liason between the two commands.

Of course it begs the question of just what in the fuck the Chief of Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs are doing.

The appropriate google search yielded: "Results 1 - 10 of about 469,000 for 'sucking each other's cocks'. (0.13 seconds)

I see no need to elaborate.

[LTS TRN 2]

Here's the Czar chattin' with the chimp on 9/11.

Good debate. Let me save you some wrangling. Hang the entire current (unelected) cabal--for a variety of U.S. and international crimes, and then institute a ban of religious people in positions of authority. Starting with the supreme court.