Which you rather do?
Bush's search for someone to coordinate his wars has predictably, and justifiably led to mass laughter and hilarity (tinged of course, as always, with the inherent sadness of how could things ever get this bad?)
Today in the Post, General John J. Sheehan illuminates his decision to decline to take this, uh, "promotion." (NOTE: Have you ever seen a wanted ad that says "We have an opening for a dynamic, newly-created position! All we need is you and your flexibility and creativity!" When you see an AD like this rip it out and toss it immediately, lest you risk even accidentally circling it!)
Basically he sums up what everybody already knows, that Bush/Cheney is probably the worst foreign policy administration in the history of any nation.
What I found in discussions with current and former members of this administration is that there is no agreed-upon strategic view of the Iraq problem or the region. In my view, there are essentially three strategies in play simultaneously.
No focus. Everyone's in their own fiefdom. No wonder they're looking for someone to coordinate among the mess.
The day-to-day work of the White House implementation manager overseeing Iraq and Afghanistan would require a great deal of emotional and intellectual energy resolving critical resource issues in a bureaucracy that, to date, has not functioned well. Activities such as the current surge operations should fit into an overall strategic framework. There has to be linkage between short-term operations and strategic objectives that represent long-term U.S. and regional interests, such as assured access to energy resources and support for stable, Western-oriented countries. These interests will require a serious dialogue and partnership with countries that live in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood. We cannot "shorthand" this issue with concepts such as the "democratization of the region" or the constant refrain by a small but powerful group that we are going to "win," even as "victory" is not defined or is frequently redefined.
First of all, you have to appreciate the complete irony in this--the Bushies go on what's supposed to be a Top Secret headhunt, and what happens? One of the proposed draftees not only doesn't take the job, he uses the opportunity to criticize them in the op-ed pages.
Secondly, with just a few key points he lacerates the major points of what's wrong with the Bush admin. (Just the major ones, he's not writing a book here...) Bush did a great job of selling the war throughout 2003 and 2004, but sloganeering doesn't help you run it.
What Sheehan is basically saying is that in order to accept this position he'd need to be able to tell everybody to CUT THE BULLSHIT. Stop Bullshitting the USA, stop bullshitting the Iraqis, stop bullshitting our allies, stop bullshitting the other countries in the middle east, stop bullshitting the troops, and above all, stop bullshitting yourselves. (Of course he's assuming Bush/Cheney really give a shit at this point, which of course they don't, they only care about the oil and the defense companies). Without the authority to say those three words, accepting a position with this bunch would be madness.
He also calls them on their "We CAN WIN!" Rhetoric. This is an OCCUPATION.
A violent one, but an occupation nonetheless. As a Kossack here said, (I think it was ClammyC) you don't WIN an occupation you either ANNEX the territory or GO HOME. Either or. Stop saying "Victory" and start defining what actual victory would entail.
The Iraq Occupation, problematic within itself, ties in with the larger Middle East situation and clear, honest, and above all, acheivable goals are needed. Photo-ops at VFW halls are simply not going to cut it.
This is why competent people have no place in this administration and why Sheehan earlier said he'd probably develop an ulcer trying to organize things.
"...after thoughtful discussions with people both in and outside of this administration, I concluded that the current Washington decision-making process lacks a linkage to a broader view of the region and how the parts fit together strategically. We got it right during the early days of Afghanistan -- and then lost focus. We have never gotten it right in Iraq. For these reasons, I asked not to be considered for this important White House position. These huge shortcomings are not going to be resolved by the assignment of an additional individual to the White House staff. They need to be addressed before an implementation manager is brought on board."
In other words, their were and are structural problems with the whole of U.S. foreign policy concerning Iraq. And we are past the point where band-aids would help.
But in the larger scheme of things you go back to what Bob Novak and others have said: Never has their been a President so completely isolated and alone. No one will stand with him. No one wants to stand with him. If you value your career, or legacy, or sanity, you don't want to be connected to him at all.
It's said because people like Sheehan, Colin Powell, Gen. Anthony Zinni, and othes could perhaps turn Iraq around. But without the freedom to say "BULLSHIT" they'd get nowhere. So George W Bush will have to continue with HIS war all the way to the bitter end. Alone.