War Czar: Good Choice, Bad Role?

With President Bush's announcement naming Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute as war czar came recognition that his wife, too, has some extensive international credentials. With a Ph.D. from Stanford in political science, Jane Holl Lute is highly regarded in her role as United Nations assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations. Before her current post, she was also a career military officer, later heading up the Carnegie Commission on the Prevention of Deadly Conflict. They are, joke military officials, a couple that runs the expertise spectrum from war and peace.

Lute is likely to need the help, say current and former U.S. military officials. There is little concern about Lute's own credentials for the job. As director of operations for the Pentagon's Joint Staff, he was, in essence, the chief operating officer for U.S. military operations, facilitating "all military force application on the planet," in the words of one officer--the person essentially doing the work of the war czar for the military.

The problem is that the president "made a great selection for a questionable role," says retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who headed up training of Iraqi Security Forces from 2003 to 2004 and also worked in the office of the director of operations at the Pentagon Joint Staff. "The fact that you have a war czar tells me that the vice president has not been able to do his role as the primary guy to deal with the interagency process. It's an admission that Cheney is ineffective."

Eaton, who has been a critic of administration policy on Iraq, also points out that a war czar position--and further, appointing an active-duty general to fill it--is a disheartening sign that "once again, they've gone to the military to solve administrative problems."

It's a concern echoed within the halls of the Pentagon. There are some concerns about how a three-star general like Lute will hold serious sway over a four-star general like David Petraeus, who heads up U.S. military operations in Iraq. But more than that, say officials, is concern that "If the issue is a lack of interagency coordination and cabinet heads not telling their organizations to do what they're supposed to do in executing the president's agenda, what makes anybody think that a three-star is going to change that?" asks one senior U.S. military official.

Some express concern that giving the job to a three-star general signals a weaker role for the war czar than the president initially imagined. What's more, some speculate that the job may represent an attempt to dilute the authority of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates after he publicly commented that perhaps the congressional debate on timelines--though, he added, not the timelines themselves--could be a useful way to focus the minds of Iraqi parliamentarians.

But perhaps, say some in the Pentagon, it is the minds of U.S. leadership that need more focus. If the global war on terrorism truly is a priority for the president, they ask, why wouldn't the president or U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley take on the job of war czar themselves? "If the president says this is a struggle for civilization--this war on terrorism--and the central front is Iraq," asks the senior military official, "Why would they outsource that kind of leadership job?"

--Anna Mulrine